Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Government (Derbyshire)

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the local government review in Derbyshire.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The commission published its final report on Derbyshire last Wednesday. There is a six-week period for representations to the Department of the Environment.

Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widely held view of Derbyshire people that their arguments in favour of unitary authorities were ignored by the commission from the start? While Derby city rightly gets its independence under the proposals, does he agree that the benefits of unitary authorities should be spread more widely across Derbyshire, rather than leaving so many people to struggle on under the currently imperfect two-tier system?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will know that during this period I have to listen very carefully to views from all sides, and I have noted very clearly what she and many of her colleagues think. At the end of the six-week period I shall have to make up my mind as to what to present to Parliament.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in the course of the Local Government Commission's discussions—which extended over many months, during which the Minister sent the commission back to test the water again—every single piece of evidence from all the polling surveys made it clear that the Derbyshire people wanted to retain the status quo? It has been an extremely costly exercise for the taxpayers of Derbyshire and for Britain as a whole. It is time that the Minister got off his political high horse and stopped trying to disassemble Derbyshire just because he does not like its political complexion. Why does the Minister not accept the survey results?

Mr. Gummer: There is clearly a difference of view in Derbyshire which has already been represented in the House today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, once the discussion period has ended, we should lay the order with due speed. I hope that he will ask his hon. Friends not to hold up all the orders until the end of the process because that would cause considerable difficulty for the people who work in Derbyshire and the districts. I hope that the Labour party will support a speedy process.

Local Government (Hampshire)

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his final response to the proposals of the Local Government Commission in relation to Hampshire.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): We are still considering the commission's recommendations for Hampshire in the light of meetings with nine of the councils concerned and the views contained in some 2,000 letters.

Mr. Viggers: While not many people threw their hats in the air at the commission's interim conclusions—which recommend that county borough status should be restored to Southampton and Portsmouth—very few people outside the New Forest can understand the late idea that the New Forest should have unitary status. I accept that my hon. Friend is not in a position to give me an answer this afternoon, but will he bear in mind the strong representations outside the New Forest that giving the New Forest unitary status will considerably damage the concept of Hampshire as a county?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will understand that in reaching our conclusions on this and all other counties we have to judge the intrinsic merits of the case for unitary status in particular areas, together with the consequential effects on the remaining county area if a hybrid solution is envisaged.

Mr. Denham: The Minister will be aware of the strong support in Southampton for a unitary council for that area. Will he bring forward a clear timetable for local government reorganisation in Hampshire? Matters are drifting on month by month and people are unclear about whether they will face elections for new authorities this May or next year. It is also deeply unsettling for the staff who are delivering services. Will the Minister give a commitment to announcing a clear timetable for decision making and for implementing the results?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we must consider carefully all the representations that we have received, and there is a heavy volume of representations from Hampshire. As soon as we have done so, we shall announce our intentions. When we have done that, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman, for the reasons that he has just stated, will want us to invite Parliament to take a decision so that the staff, about whose future he is rightly concerned, will know exactly where they stand and will not be kicking their heels for several months or perhaps a year while the process is completed.

Mr. Colvin: Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) had to say, does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is another view in Hampshire? Two thirds of my constituency is within the New Forest, so I can confirm that there is strong support for the recommendation that there should be unitary status for that district. With regard to resources, the New Forest is the fifth biggest district council in the country, out of 333 district councils, in terms of its tax base, and even if it were given unitary status Hampshire county council would still remain the fourth biggest. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to rumour, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State still has an open mind on the


recommendations for Hampshire? Will the Minister also talk to the Secretary of State for Education about the recommendations—[Interruption.]—as she has undertaken to look carefully at the ability of the New Forest to provide an education service—[Interruption]—as good as, or better than, that which Hampshire county council now provides?

Madam Speaker: Order. It is an abuse of Question Time when hon. Members go on for so long. I wish that they would spend part of their lunch time working out the questions that they want to ask the Minister. That would make very good use of the lunch period.

Mr. Curry: As soon as we have considered the representations, we shall announce our decision. The case for the New Forest, as well as the implications for the rest of the county, must of course be borne in mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be able to consider the recommendations as all these matters are for the collective decision of the Government.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that he could dispel the cynicism which surrounds the review process for Hampshire and the rest of the country if he would make it clear now that he will bring before the House the final recommendations of the commission in every case in which change is proposed? If he will provide that guarantee and also make it clear that staff will have the same terms and conditions, whether on redundancy or transfer, that they were given with the abolition of the metropolitan counties, the doubts which now divide his hon. Friends will be set at naught, particularly if we know that the House of Commons and the House of Lords will have a proper say in the process.

Mr. Curry: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question seems entirely without point. Of course we shall bring the matter before the House: we are obliged to do so. I look forward to the debate. I enjoyed the debate on Cleveland enormously and I hope to enjoy the same spectacle reproduced on the Opposition side in debate after debate on these matters. The one thing that would militate actively against the interests of the staff would be not knowing where they stand and following the Labour party policy of deciding nothing until all the recommendations were before the House. If that were the case, no one would know where they were and the recipe for uncertainty would be enormous.

Environmental Pollution

Mr. Elletson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about assistance provided by the Government to eastern European countries to deal with environmental pollution.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): Like many other people, the Government have been appalled to learn of the extent of pollution and environmental destruction that has been exposed since the collapse of communism and socialism in the former eastern bloc. We are providing substantial support to the newly emerging democracies to improve the situation through our environmental know-how fund.

Mr. Elletson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and I congratulate him on the success of the environmental know-how fund, which has sponsored

more than 100 projects throughout eastern Europe. As eastern Europe continues to endure a horrific legacy of years of socialist central planning, is my hon. Friend prepared to consider how the environmental know-how fund might be expanded, perhaps in partnership with the private sector?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the eastern bloc countries, speaks with greater authority on the matter than almost anyone in the House and I pay great heed to anything he has to say. I assure him that we shall continue to consider ways and means whereby we can help those emerging democracies, and any ideas that he has to add to what we are already doing will be gratefully accepted.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Much as I appreciate the Minister's actions in respect of other countries, will he continue to bear in mind Northern Ireland's problems with environmental pollution, of which he is much aware?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman raises a point which could take us down a long and difficult path. He will understand that not all such problems can be solved quickly. I am sure that my successors in Northern Ireland, doing the job that I once did, are as aware as the hon. Gentleman of the need to continue the good work of environmental improvement there.

Council Housing Waiting Lists

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are on waiting lists for council housing; and what action he will take to provide housing for them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): On 1 April 1994, there were some 1.1 million applicants—the lowest figure recorded since information was first collected in 1986.

Mr. Cohen: Are not the Government proposing to make it harder for people to join housing waiting lists and to obtain the homes that they need? The demand will still be there, but people will be told that they cannot get on a waiting list and have no chance of rehousing while the Government claim, as the Minister just did, that they are getting waiting lists down. Is not the real problem shortage of supply? Ministers like to make comparisons with the last Labour Government. In the final year of the Labour Government, there were 107,000 starts on homes to rent, but next year the figure will be down to 20,000. Does the Minister accept that if starts returned to the level under the last Labour Government more people would be decently housed?

Mr. Jones: We do not share the hon. Gentleman's obsession with that form of tenure. It is right and proper that there should be a choice of tenure which reflects the aspirations of the public. The waiting list in the London borough of Waltham Forest has fallen by 20 per cent. in the last two years.

Sir Anthony Durant: Can my hon. Friend say how many empty council houses there are in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Jones: There is a substantial number of empty council houses, and we have been working with local


authorities to make sure that they are brought into use. Under-occupied and vacant council housing means that people do not get homes that they might otherwise obtain.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister accept that there are particular problems with homelessness in rural areas, especially where house prices are high due to an influx of people who work elsewhere or who wish to own second homes? Such areas are particularly worried about cuts in the housing association programme, which mean that some associations will be unable to build any new homes in the coming years. At the same time, many councils are unable to build and have sold off a large proportion of their already low housing stock.

Mr. Jones: The Housing Corporation programme provides for a top slice for rural housing, which we have maintained as an important ingredient. The challenge for rural local authorities is the same as that facing authorities in general—to use their stock to best advantage, which means that they, too, must have proper strategies to deal with under-occupation and to command what available lettings there are in the private rented sector.

Superstore Developments

Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on superstore developments on main arterial roads in urban areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: New retail developments should ideally be sited in or within easy walking distance of existing urban centres. Main arterial roads rarely provide suitable all-round access.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that long reply. There is a dichotomy, in that many constituencies have major arterial roads—in my constituency it is the north circular—running through them. When a large superstore is developed on such a road, that adversely affects local shopping areas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that careful thought must be given to such developments as their adverse effect on high streets is the same as that caused by out-of-town developments?

Mr. Gummer: My final sentence described the hiatus that occurs on local roads when an arterial route is built. My hon. Friend is right: the way in which arterial roads draw populations from outside and often attract business away from local shopping centres is a real issue. We are determined to improve and enhance existing shopping centres and to ensure that the public have better access to them so that those centres can grow and bring new vitality to our towns and small areas.

Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister also take into account the dangers of the increased traffic associated with arterial roads? In my constituency there are two planned superstore developments on Valley road, both near accident black spots. Will he give a guarantee that if the submissions are referred to him he will take such factors into consideration?

Mr. Gummer: I am, of course, very concerned with road safety. One of my beliefs is that if we can give new life to city centres and the centres of small towns, and if we can make proper provision for the motor car so that people can use their cars to shop, park them safely and

walk from the parking place to the shops—that would probably involve using closed circuit television—we could do a great deal to make them feel that such centres are pleasant, welcoming places. They ought also to be places where we can reduce the number of accidents by designing urban communities properly.

Mr. Hawksley: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his current policy on superstores will not adversely affect the application for the Merry Hill development in the west midlands, which would result in a welcome influx of some £8 million of private money? I hope that the slight change which seems to have occurred in Government policy will not result in any delay in that application being dealt with.

Mr. Gummer: It would be wrong for me to judge an application on the Floor of the House; I shall look at each one on its merits. There is nothing in our proposition to suggest that out-of-town development is always wrong. We are saying that the balance should be changed and that greater weight should be given to the needs of city centres and the centres of our smaller towns. It is that balance that we have changed. The change has been extremely successful, people in the country at large believe it to be correct, and we shall continue with it.

Home Renovation Grants

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many home renovation grants were made last year; and what were the figures for 1984 and 1989.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Figures are not yet available for 1994. In 1993, however, 90,000 grants were made under the new provisions of part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. In 1984 and 1989 local authorities awarded 229,000 and 98,000 home improvement grants respectively.

Mr. O'Brien: Do not the figures prove that the grant system for renovation, improvements and community activities is wholly inadequate and is not working? As the Government have repeatedly cut the money provided over the years, local authorities now cannot even provide mandatory grants and it is quite impossible to supply discretionary grants. When will the Minister do something for people who are living in sub-standard accommodation and squalor? When may we expect the Government to provide the resources to improve accommodation and bring it up to the standards to which people are entitled?

Mr. Jones: Concerns about the renovation grant system were expressed to me and to other Ministers during the housing investment programme round and at other times, and we have been consulting on what to do about the long-term strategy for renovation. We shall announce our conclusions in due course. It was wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that there is necessarily a shortage of resources throughout the country as it varies from authority to authority. Some of them underspend their allocations. Wakefield benefited from a recent reallocation when we were able to give it a further £440,000 as a result of underspending by other authorities.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Although it is good for local authorities to improve their housing stock and its energy


conservation wherever possible, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a waste of money to ask every local authority to do a complete audit of how that can be done? Unless a great deal more money can be obtained from the Treasury, such audits will be wasted and will use up money which could be better spent elsewhere.

Mr. Jones: It is extremely important to get information on these matters so as to be able to judge housing investment programme bids, and others. We have been requiring local authorities to provide us with evidence of their energy efficiency strategy in order to evaluate their housing strategies. An assessment of every house would cost a great deal of money, which would be wrong, but there are now plenty of systems for assessing the energy efficiency of housing without going into that sort of detail.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister give a fuller reply to the main question? The figure of 90,000 includes not just renovation grants but disabled facility grants and minor works grants, most of them for small sums. If he compares like with like, he will find that the number of renovation grants has fallen dramatically since the mid and late 1980s.When will the Government recognise that thousands of people living in sub-standard housing have been waiting for years for grants which are supposed to be mandatory because the Government have not provided the money to enable local authorities to pay those grants?

Mr. Jones: As I said earlier, that is not true of all local authorities. Issues have been raised by different councils throughout the country about quantity of resources and the nature of the regime. Some councils feel that the present mandatory system stops them focusing their regeneration strategies properly on areas which really need them. We shall have to weigh all the arguments before reaching a conclusion about the future of the system.

Millennium Fund

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what projects under the control of his Department he will be applying for funds from the millennium fund.

Mr. Gummer: None.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that when my former steelworker friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and I made a four-hour visit to the greatest structure of the 19th century—the Forth rail bridge—we were appalled at the flaking paint, the debris of dead birds and, frankly, seagull shit on the bare steel structure? As Railtrack has other priorities, should this not be a matter for the millennium fund as the bridge is a national monument associated not only with Scotland but with Britain and Europe?

Mr. Gummer: I shall take a considerable interest in inspecting personally the structure to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I will do my best to assess what he has said.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that what he has done today in asking a question as a Scottish Member is something that he would be able to do in future if Labour's devolution plans were to go through but which

no English Member would be able to do as English Members would not be able to ask questions about Scotland.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend advise the House whether it would be in order to apply to the millennium fund to finance a preservation order on the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)?

Mr. Gummer: The example that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) put forward is one of considerable importance. I also believe, however, that we should all recognise that we have a history which is worth preserving and that part of that history is a constitution which should not be monkeyed about with.

Council Tax

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average council tax for a band D house in Westminster and for a band D house in St. Helens.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: For St. Helens it is £652 and for Westminster £245. If St. Helens were to spend at the same rate as Westminster relative to standard spending assessment, the band D council tax in St. Helens would be £224—even lower than in Westminster.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that St. Helens and Westminster city councils are roughly the same size and cover roughly the same population? Will he acknowledge also that the reason for the appalling figures that he has announced is that for every £1 that Westminster city councils spends it receives 97p in Government rate support grant while St. Helens city council receives only 77p? Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to hear from me that the people of St. Helens increasingly regard an RSG system which creates enormous disparities between broadly similar authorities as utterly corrupt?

Mr. Jones: To describe St. Helens and Westminster as broadly similar authorities is ridiculous, just as it would be ridiculous to compare St. Helens with, for example, the London borough of Hackney, which also receives a high standard spending assessment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, SSA reflects a range of factors which are different in different authorities. For example, millions of visitors and commuters come into Westminster, which is not the case in St. Helens. An apt comparison is what would happen if St. Helens spent as far below its SSA as Westminster did, and I commend that to the hon. Gentleman's local authority.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if other inner-London boroughs that get similar resources from the Government to those of Westminster were as efficient as Westminster, there would be no reason why they should not have a similarly low council tax? Is not Westminster's low council tax a tribute to the fact that it has been at the forefront of contracting out and, wherever it can, it seeks out and roots out waste?

Mr. Jones: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct. If other local authorities in inner London were as persistent in examining the cost-effectiveness of their administration, they would end up with the dividends for their council tax payers.

Mr. Dobson: Do not the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans)


show that the Government are pouring taxpayers' money into Westminster to keep down the council tax there, at the expense of money being available for other places, such as St. Helens? Why should other parts of Britain, including the parts represented by Conservative Members, have to suffer because the Government have to give extra money to Westminster to make up for the £3 million that they squandered on the cemeteries, the £21 million on the homes for votes scandal and the £13 million that Westminster Tories forgot to collect in service and repair charges from the people who bought their council houses?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is a Member for the London borough of Camden, the SSA for which is almost exactly the same per capita as for the London borough of Westminster. I assume, therefore, that, as the figures came out of the same system, he wants the grant to the London borough of Camden to be cut dramatically. I think that he will have awful difficulty with the councillors on his selection board when he goes up for reselection.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that Westminster provides services that are much appreciated by the citizens of Westminster, but in Ealing, a comparable area, the Labour council is drastically reducing services as well as putting up the council tax by 10 per cent? Is that not socialism as we see it. in this country?

Mr. Jones: If one needs to judge socialism, the best place in which to look is where it is practiced—Labour-controlled authorities. What my hon. Friend says about the London borough of Ealing will, I am sure, get home as a very important message to the electors of Ealing, North for the next general election.

Single Regeneration Budget

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for a second round of bidding for the single regeneration budget.

Mr. Curry: A second bidding round of the single regeneration budget will be launched later this year. Some £40 million will be available in 1996–97 for early funding of approved bids and £200 million the following year.

Mr. Dowd: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the London borough of Lewisham, which has an exemplary record in public-private finance partnerships, including city challenge and estate action, is still unaware of the status of the three unsuccessful first-round bids in relation to the second round of bidding, which is due to commence shortly? Does he agree that his Department has a responsibility to provide all local authorities with unambiguous and clear guidelines at the earliest opportunity if they are to persist with their cut-price, gameshow approach to urban regeneration?

Mr. Curry: If it is a cut-price approach, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said that he thought that the sums spent on it were about right; he said that Labour would spend roughly the same amount of money.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) has forgotten, perhaps, that Lewisham received £14 million from the urban programme, that Deptford city challenge is receiving £37.5 million over five years and that the task force is receiving £1 million of Government money and

£10 million levied from other sources. There are four major estate action programmes worth £83 million of public funds, two successful SRB bids related to ethnic minorities, and the docklands light railway extension. so it ain't a bad record as far as Lewisham is concerned.
As for the Deptford creek project, the local authority will have been in discussion with the Government office about the nature of that bid. The bidding will not change so substantially for the second round that the bids that did not qualify this time will not be eligible as candidates in the second round. Clearly, one cannot prejudge the outcome.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Sadly, Macclesfield was unsuccessful in the first round under this programme—perhaps even more so than Lewisham, Macclesfield being one of the few councils still with overall Conservative control, well run, abiding by every regulation that the Government request of it. Does my hon. Friend accept that, even in an area that is considered to be prosperous, there are pockets of deprivation and poverty and that this project can uniquely assist in such areas? Will he give me an assurance that any further application from Macclesfield will receive his sympathetic consideration?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will know that the single regeneration budget has national coverage, so all areas in the country are eligible to bid. There were successful bids from rural and urban areas. I cannot give my hon. Friend an assurance that a bid will receive sympathetic consideration any more than I can say that it will receive unsympathetic consideration. However, the regional office will be working with the partners to ensure that any problems or deficiencies in a bid are pointed out so that the authorities are capable of bidding in the second round.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister is clearly not aware of the huge costs and the great difficulties faced by those local authorities that have been unsuccessful in their first round bids. Will he ensure that, before the second round begins, a detailed regional statement is produced by the regional offices—something that he failed to have produced at the last round of the SRB—so that local authorities know precisely what the criteria will be, or is it the case that the statement cannot be published because the Government do not have a clue what their regeneration policy should be?

Mr. Curry: That is rather rich coming from the hon. Gentleman, who is allegedly the author of "City 2020", which sank without trace soon after being launched; even the assistance of the mayor of Baltimore could not rescue that document. The regional office has instructions to work with all the partners in order to point out where there were deficiencies so that they are capable of bidding for the second time around. [Interruption.] It is not a blind date process. It is done with a great deal of consideration.
The best bids won this time, but we do not intend that those that were unsuccessful should not be capable of putting their bid in order so that they can bid the second time around, when their bid will be judged on its merits in competition with other bids.

Mr. McLoughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government are often accused of diverting money to areas that support the Government's case? Will he therefore explain to me why, under the single regeneration budget,


the two most successful areas in Derbyshire were Bolsover and Chesterfield? Are they well known for their support of Government policies?

Mr. Curry: I am tempted to say that it clearly must reflect the particular characteristics of the Members of Parliament concerned, but I do not wish to mislead the House on the matter. It happened because those bids, which were the result of public and private sector support, were among the best bids in the region. That demonstrates that this is not a political process; it is based on the merits of a bid in a competitive process which has proved to be successful.

Pollution

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority regarding pollution from abandoned mine workings; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: My Department maintains regular contact with the National Rivers Authority about this issue.

Mr. Mullin: As the Minister knows, there is much concern in the north-east and elsewhere on this issue. Will he assure the House that the Coal Authority will continue to fund the pumping of abandoned mine workings for as long as the NRA thinks is necessary, bearing in mind the fact that, if it all goes wrong, the cost of clearing up will be much greater than the cost of the pumping?

Mr. Atkins: It is certainly the intention that the Coal Authority will continue to fund the necessary pumping and I have no reason to suppose that that situation will change.

Sir Donald Thompson: As my hon. Friend says, disused coal mines are fairly well catered for, but mines from which other minerals came seem to have been completely forgotten, especially those whose ownership has been lost in the mists of time; a similar situation applies to quarries. Will my hon. Friend consider that?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter, which will be dealt with in the Environment Bill, which is being discussed in another place. We will be interested to hear what he has to say on the matter when it arrives at this end.

Ms Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that, under the Environment Bill, polluting water from abandoned mines will continue to emanate therefrom until the turn of the century? Why is liability to prosecution not to be imposed until 1999? Could it be because the contracts of private mine owners with the power generators come up for renewal in 1998 and the Government expect more mines to be abandoned at that point? Is that not just another example of a Government trying to protect private profits over the environment?

Mr. Atkins: As usual, the hon. Lady is living in cloud cuckoo land. We are dealing with the real world, in which we must give as much warning as possible to those involved. That is why we consider 1999 an appropriate date. I have no doubt that, when the matter is discussed as we debate the Environment Bill, the hon. Lady will make similar points and I shall give a similar response.

Mr. Devlin: Should not those who close mines in future have to give the new agency ample notice of their intentions, and also state what provision they will make for the pumping that may be necessary thereafter?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, and we hope that the Bill will contain precisely that recommendation. We intend, for instance, that six months' notice will be required in 1999. My hon. Friend's points will be taken on board.

Nuclear Waste

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision about the proposal to use local authority landfill sites for the dumping of low-level nuclear waste.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Currently, hospitals, universities and laboratories dispose of low-level radioactive waste at a small number of landfill sites under strictly controlled conditions. By low-level radioactive waste, I mean rubber gloves, wrappings and clothing, for instance, that may have been contaminated in the handling of radioactive material such as that used in the treatment of cancer. The extent of use of this method has been reviewed, the results have been out to consultation and conclusions will be announced in due course.

Mr. Chisholm: Will the Minister reject the recommendation of his own Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee that local authorities should be forced to accept low-level nuclear waste, including waste from nuclear power stations, against their wishes? Does he admit that that is a cost-cutting proposal, connected at least in part with future privatisation of the nuclear industry?

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Sir Paul Beresford: Hon. Members on both sides of the House put the point rather well; it is absolute nonsense. The committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers is an advisory committee, and is not forcing anyone to do anything.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend confirm that low-level waste usually has a half life of only a few months? That means that, after a couple of years, the level of radioactivity is asymptotic to zero and virtually non-existent.

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend has put the matter into perspective. The radioactivity level is extremely low, and if any movement took place in the wrong direction there would be an outcry from the national health authorities about disposal facilities.

Noise Working Party

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the working party on noise to complete its work; if it will take evidence; and in what form it will publish its conclusions.

Mr. Atkins: The working party expects to complete its review shortly, and I intend to consult extensively on its conclusions and recommendations.

Mr. Hughes: That answer is welcome. I believe, however, that the working party is composed of officials


from the Home Office and other Departments, the police and local government; out there, the public want their shout on the issue. I consider that the public take a much harder line than officials on the need to be tough on noise makers. Will the Minister guarantee that they will have their say, and that their views will prevail rather than those of enforcement agencies which often want an easy life?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. He will know of the campaign being run by The Mail on Sunday and the responses—more than 30,000—that it has received: it is welcome that the newspaper has taken such a public interest in the issue.
We have sought the advice not only of the Departments to which the hon. Gentleman refers but of others, including environmental health officers, who are very much in the front line. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the conclusions of the working party, which will report in the not too distant future. I am only too aware of the problems of noise, not only in urban but in rural areas, and I intend to do something about them.

Town and Parish Councils

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to set up town and parish councils in unparished areas.

Mr. Gummer: I am on record as being very much in favour of parish councils and am looking at ways in which we can enhance their role.

Mr. Rendel: I welcome the Secretary of State's support for parish councils. Regardless of what he does about other recommendations for Berkshire, will he confirm that the strong recommendation for the creation of a parish council for Newbury will be accepted, in line with the long-standing thoughts of local people?

Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly look at that and also at the difficulty under present legislation, which is that if an ancient town already has some sort of trust council it cannot also have parish council status. Many towns want to keep their historic regalia and historic ways of doing things and have the powers that a parish council may give to them. I am looking to see whether we can find a way around that difficulty.

Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some areas do not actively seek parish status and that we should not rush down the road of establishing new parishes unless there is clearly a genuine need for doing so?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that some places do not look for this status. However, I hope that we shall encourage those other authorities, district and county councils, which in recent months have made clear their desire to work with parishes and give them greater powers— which, of course, is in their remit—to continue down that road after the announcements of the final decisions on local government reorganisation. I should not like any of those

who have promised such co-operation during the run-up to the decisions to forget those promises when they have achieved the status that they sought.

Mr. Pike: Is it the Government's view that a parish council should have the right to levy a precept and that a nation which is a part of the United Kingdom should not have the right to levy a tax?

Mr. Gummer: It is certainly the Government's view that the present arrangements for precepting should continue. However, it is not our view that we should so break up the United Kingdom that there should be tax-levying powers in other parts of it in circumstances in which Members of this House would have no right to ask questions about how those taxes were raised or spent.

Homelessness

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making with reducing homelessness.

Mr. Curry: Over the past two and a half years, there have been successive reductions in the number of households accepted by local authorities as homeless.

Mr. Nicholson: I am glad to hear that there has been progress on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that success in this matter involves co-operation with other Departments, especially the Department of Social Security, and with local authorities and voluntary organisations? Does he further agree that individuals have different reasons for homelessness? In some cases, it may be because of the breakdown in caring community facilities. Would he question the right of people publicly to sleep in the streets and publicly to beg?

Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many reasons for people being homeless. I am extremely happy to praise the good work of the voluntary organisations in this matter. We depend heavily on them and co-operate successfully with them. It is thanks to their efforts and the partnership which we have created that the figures have come down so dramatically. We wish 10 make sure that we settle and deal with this problem effectively wherever it occurs.

Mr. Soley: Perhaps the Minister will explain where homeless people are to sleep if it is not on the streets. They do not have anywhere to live. Does he recall a report by the Duke of Edinburgh's committee a few years ago, which was supported by the churches and various other experts on housing, that a loss of 2 million rented sector houses, which are not being replaced, was a primary cause of homelessness and housing queues? Why does he think that he has got it right and both God and the royal family have got it wrong?

Mr. Curry: Clearly, I was not the Minister at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My memory is certainly good enough to recall that. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the right to buy, he is referring to people who had secure tenancies and were therefore occupying houses which they would have occupied as rented tenants in any case. That means people have not taken houses that would otherwise be available; they are living in the same houses under a different form of tenure.

Rural Challenge

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of parish councils in East Anglia to discuss rural challenge.

Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when dealing with local matters, parish councils often understand much more about rural areas and the needs of their communities than district or county councils? Does he further agree that more influence and weight should be given to parish councils? Will he confirm that when he frames his policies for the countryside, he will listen to local people on matters such as access to the countryside and country sports? Will he pledge to do all that he can to listen to the views of local people in rural areas?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend show his affection for parish councils and I join him and my hon. Friend in that. My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about the countryside and I shall listen to him, to his constituents and to others with similar views and interests during progress on the White Paper on rural matters, which we intend to publish towards the end of the year.

Housing Statistics

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of (a) local authority and (b) housing association dwellings started in 1978 and (c) the estimated number in each category for 1994.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Housing associations started 17,900 new dwellings in England in 1978. We estimate that they will have started over 33,000 new dwellings in 1994. English local authorities started 67,600 dwellings in 1978, with new towns starting a further 7,000 dwellings. We estimate that they will start fewer than 500 dwellings in 1994. This change reflects the shift to an enabling role for local authorities with housing associations becoming the main providers of new social housing.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister recognise that the comparison between 1978 and today illustrates only too well why so many people face such appalling difficulties in trying to find, usually without any success, affordable rented accommodation? Is he aware that when I leave here in the evening and walk up Whitehall, within five minutes of the Palace of Westminster I see a sight that I certainly did not witness before 1979—people sleeping out in the rain and the cold, because they have no alternative? They are among the victims of the Government's callous housing policy, which has left so many people homeless or near homeless.

Mr. Jones: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House earlier when I answered a question from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) about waiting lists. I told him that they had fallen substantially.
We cannot cover every blade of grass with new housing development. We must ensure that there is a proper balance between building new homes, with the costs associated with that, and ensuring that existing housing stock is properly used.

Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that what really matters is the number of new lettings made every

year? Will he further confirm that last year there was the highest number of new lettings since 1979? Lettings are on the increase.

Mr. Jones: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a valuable point. Local authorities, with their new enabling role, can ensure that lettings are available not just in the public sector but in the private sector. Some local authorities whose representatives I met during the recent housing investment programme rounds have been much more successful than others at managing to persuade owners of empty properties in the private sector to make them available for rent. I commend that strategy to all local authorities—it is copying the successes of the best.

Mr. Dobson: Why will not the Minister admit that, despite the claim that housing associations have taken on the role of councils, the figures that he has quoted show that the number of houses available for letting by councils and housing associations together has more than halved? Roughly speaking, 50 council houses were built in 1979 for every one that this rotten, mean-minded Government are building today.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that money grows on trees. The only suggestion he has for making more money available is to release capital receipts, which would have a dramatic effect on council taxes as well as driving up borrowing. That would be most unsatisfactory in present circumstances. The hon. Gentleman also sets his face against harnessing private money for the redevelopment of housing and the creation of new housing. I commend the large-scale voluntary transfers as a way of getting additional resources for housing.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Do not the figures that my hon. Friend just quoted represent a real achievement in helping the homeless? Do they not make the Labour party's professions on wanting to care for the homeless seem extremely hollow?

Mr. Jones: What the Labour party wants more than anything else is for people to be captives in the public sector, which is the very opposite of our view. We believe that people should realise their aspirations to be home owners or to rent, whichever they want.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contributions he now expects to the reduction of carbon dioxide required by Rio targets to be contributed by value added tax on domestic fuel, rises in transport fuel duties, action by the Energy Saving Trust, energy conservation measures in building regulations and other schemes.

Mr. Atkins: We are currently reviewing the contributions expected from the measures in our climate change programme in the light of recent developments, and will also be taking account of the revised energy projections on which the Department of Trade and Industry is working. The climate change convention requires us to take measures aimed at returning emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000 and we are committed to fulfilling these requirements.

Mr. Bennett: When will the review be completed? Can the Minister confirm that unless the Energy Saving Trust has some money, it will be unable to carry out any of the work that the Government intend it to do?

Mr. Atkins: As soon as possible, and yes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the home energy efficiency savings scheme has been remarkably successful? Many hon. Members have seen equipment installed in constituents' homes. Will he confirm that people are eligible for some £300 of Government assistance if they install energy conservation equipment in their homes? Will he also confirm that the Government will continue the scheme and that it will save a considerable amount of energy?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I have been involved in a scheme at a house in my constituency which I found interesting, and those who have received the grant have certainly been pleased. The scheme was increased substantially last year by an energy-conscious Government and Department, and it will be increased this year by a further £30 million by the energy-conscious Chancellor, Secretary of State and Ministers. We intend to keep our objective because we know—perhaps more than anyone— how important energy efficiency is.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister accept that energy in all of its aspects is the central environmental consideration, and that it therefore ought to be the central matter in relation to the environment agency legislation? What proposals do the Government have to ensure that the new agency will be able to offer guidance to other Departments, such as the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Transport, on energy policies?

Mr. Atkins: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman either awaits the passage of the Bill or goes to another place to hear the discussions which are going on about the matter. When the Bill is brought to this place, the hon. Gentleman will find much to excite him.

Local Authority Leaseholders

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to assist local authority leaseholders who are encountering difficulty selling their homes.

Mr. Curry: I hope to introduce a revised scheme in the spring.

Mr. Gerrard: That is welcome news. Is the Minister aware that council leaseholders are lobbying here this afternoon and that they have only invited Tory Members as they think that Tory Members need educating about the effects of believing Government propaganda about buying their flats? Some local authorities are willing in principle to buy back the flats of people who were persuaded by the Government to buy their flats and who now find that they cannot sell them, but the authorities cannot because they do not have the capital. Is it not about time that those people were given some help to get out of the trap in which they have found themselves?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the Government are concerned about the position of

leaseholders who are unable to raise mortgages on properties which they have bought. We are working hard on a scheme to introduce a more flexible form of agreement which local authorities can use to assist in the sale of flats by indemnifying commercial mortgage lending to new purchasers. We are also looking at an exchange sales scheme to help local authorities to Cake back certain flats which have been affected by mortgageability difficulties in exchange for selling leaseholders another home more suitable for their needs.

Madam Speaker: Mr. David Tredinnick. Mr. John Spellar. Mr. Rhodri Morgan. Mr. John Battle. It is a total disgrace that Members are absent without apologising either to the Minister or to me.

Planning Legislation

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for a review of planning legislation.

Mr. Gummer: I shall consider the need for amending legislation in the light of the Government's imminent response to the report "Shopping Centres and Their Future" by the Select Committee on the Environment, and of the follow-up to the symposium on quality in town and country which I hosted last month.

Mr. Cox: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Secretary of State's reply, in view of the earlier exchanges. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of our constituencies are now facing massive supermarket developments, and that there is a real fear of their effect on existing trading centres? Is there not also a fear that the concerns and the opposition of constituents are, frankly, not being listened to?

Mr. Gummer: We are looking carefully at each of the cases. In the first round, it is for the local authority to make the planning decisions. The hon. Gentleman will know that I want to ensure that the balance and bias are towards the invigoration of town and city centres. At the same time, we must ensure that we raise the quality of what we build. Far too often, we have allowed our city centres to be disfigured by poor buildings, built in poor styles and with a poor lifetime ahead of them. I hope soon to be able to see the Marsham street towers in which I work pulled down. It is a bad building which is badly built, and it did not enhance the city centre. I hope that the building into which we will move before we pull that down will be better.

Sewage Outfalls

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sewage outfalls into British rivers and the sea discharge untreated sewage, other than by maceration.

Sir Paul Beresford: Some 96 per cent. of the United Kingdom population is connected to a sewerage system. A total of 83 per cent. of sewage is treated and 90 per cent. of this receives secondary treatment or better. The proportions, already high in comparison with those in many continental countries, will rise as a result of investment over the next few years.

Mr. Ainger: Does the Minister accept that there is still a serious problem in our rivers and around our


coast? A recent survey showed that our beaches are not getting any cleaner. Is it not about time that the Government insisted that all river and sea discharges were worth tertiary treatment, so that we do not have the problems that have been experienced on, for example, the Gower peninsula where there has been possible infection as a result of sewage discharges into Carmarthen bay? Is it not time that we tackled this problem seriously by insisting on tertiary treatment of all sewage discharges?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman should put the matter into perspective. Compared with other countries, the United Kingdom is among the highest in

the provision of treatment. Given the nature of the climate, the beaches are much cleaner than the hon. Gentleman is insinuating. We must tackle a problem such as this in the nature of priorities.

Mr. Skinner: What is the Minister doing here? He is supposed to be pulling teeth.

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) obviously requires a dentist. I am prepared to see him free of charge—not even under the national health service—and extract his teeth without a local anaesthetic.

Madam Speaker: On that note, time is up.

Points of Order

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you will inquire into a matter that does not seem to be anybody's responsibility, but is clearly a House of Commons matter. In the front of the House of Commons parliamentary diary, there is a list of notable dates, many of which will be found in any diary in the land. However, it also includes some which are not found in other diaries and which are inappropriate. They include the dates for the end of pheasant and partridge shooting, the expiry of game licences, the beginning of grouse and partridge shooting, and the end of grouse shooting, but, most importantly, "fox hunting begins" is in the diary as a notable date. That diary bears the name of this place, has the portcullis on the cover and is sold here. I have received a complaint about that. I wonder whether in future years you can rule that we should not have such controversial and, arguably, unacceptable practices publicised in documents bearing the coat of arms of the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that it is a House of Commons diary? Perhaps he will let, me see it. He might refer the matter to the appropriate Committee, which I think is the Administration Committee, rather than raise it on the Floor of the House. Perhaps next year we can put my birthday in the diary so that I might expect flowers all round.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am looking forward to sending you flowers on the appropriate day. May I assist you on another matter? I am an enthusiastic supporter of your campaign for terser questions at Question Time. Have you noticed that on the past four occasions when questions have been asked by Members from Welsh and Scottish constituencies, Ministers have been instructed to add a coda to their answers, saying that they could not answer the question if there was Welsh and Scottish decentralisation? That is a campaign which wastes time at Question Time. It is unfair because hon. Members cannot answer such a statement and it is tedious and futile.

Madam Speaker: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is trying to co-operate with me in seeking brisker questions and answers. I shall continue to ensure that that happens at every Question Time. I am sure that it is a great advantage to Back Benchers—I can call more of them if answers are brisk and questions are equally so.

Protection of Animals (Amendment)

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954 to require the courts to order the disqualification for life from owning animals for any person convicted of severe cruelty to a companion animal.
I have no pecuniary interest in this matter, but I have the honour to hold the British Horse Society's award of merit for outstanding services to the horse world. Clearly, the British Horse Society is concerned with the welfare of horses.
Millions of pets are kept in Britain and, thankfully, most of them are loved and well cared for. Whatever they are—dogs, hamsters or budgies—they all play a special part in people's lives. It is well established that pet owners and pet lovers generally live longer and more healthily than others, so they gain much from their pets.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have two cats.

Mr. Greenway: In that case, my hon. Friend will live a long time. However, it is, sadly, not true that all companion animals are loved and well cared for. In 1993, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals secured 3,065 convictions against people who caused cruelty to animals in their care, the very animals that rely on human intervention for their welfare needs.
The House should be in no doubt that the cruelty inflicted on animals comes in many forms. Animals may be starved through neglect, viciously beaten, left to die in hot cars, denied urgent veterinary treatment or simply thrown from a building for the fun of it. Some of the cases that come to court defy belief. For example, a dog died after being locked in a microwave; a cat was thrown from the top of a cathedral; a hamster was held under hot water.. thrown against a wall and then sealed in an airtight container before being dumped in a freezer; and a kitten had its claws removed by a 12-year-old boy before being thrown into a freezing pond.
However, it is not only the domestic pet that suffers at the hands of cruel owners. Some people take pleasure in organising illegal events such as dog fights and cock fights. They are evil forms of sport—so-called—which cause enormous, suffering to the animals involved. Incidentally, such events are a growing problem in the west London area and elsewhere, and all in the name of sport.
What price do people pay for inflicting needless cruelty on animals? The maximum penalty is six months in prison and/or a £5,000 fine.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about calves in crates?

Mr. Greenway: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The cruelty caused to calves kept in crates is unacceptable and the country will not tolerate it. I am glad that the Government are examining what can be done, but we must keep up the pressure.
As I was saying, the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals is six months in prison and/or a £5,000 fine.

Mr. John Marshall: It is not enough.

Mr. Greenway: I agree that such penalties are not sufficient but even they are used only in cases of the most


severe cruelty. If someone is convicted of cruelty, no matter how sickening, it is possible for him to continue to be allowed to own animals. At the moment, magistrates can order a ban on the ownership of animals, but that option is used in only a small percentage of cases.
In a recent RSPCA cruelty case, a Kent man pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to a friend's Jack Russell. In a statement to an RSPCA inspector, the man admitted kicking and beating the dog. When the inspector found the dog, it was lying outside an oven covered in grease. Traces of dog hairs were found inside the oven. Yet the man responsible for causing that appalling suffering was banned from keeping animals for only five years. In 1999 he will be able to keep pets again.
In another recent case, a young foal was fitted with a head collar when it was a few weeks old. As the foal grew, naturally, so did its head, but the noseband did not. After a while the noseband began to eat into the flesh on the animals' face, causing enormous pain—so much so that the poor creature could not bear to open its mouth to suckle from its mother. The penalty for knowingly inflicting such pain was a derisory fine. The owners were not imprisoned, nor did they receive suspended prison sentences, but they knew what they were doing. Our legal system allowed them to continue keeping horses and, to my knowledge, they still own four horses.
If such astonishing cruelty is hard to understand, it is even harder to punish. How can it be right that someone convicted of mindless cruelty should hear the magistrate order an RSPCA inspector to hand the animal back to the guilty party? How can we stand for that? It is not right or just. Anyone convicted of causing cruelty to animals should be banned for life from owning another such animal. What can be done?

Mr. Terry Dicks: We should treat them in the same way.

Mr. Greenway: The point is taken.
A mandatory life ban on keeping companion animals for those convicted of causing cruelty must be introduced. That will serve to protect animals that have already been mistreated and will prevent people causing more suffering in future. That is the basis of my Bill. I seek to extend the principle that already exists and is enforceable, and to make it compulsory—a life ban from keeping companion animals for those convicted of cruelty.
I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker, and for having this opportunity to raise the matter in the House. I know that many of my constituents feel extremely strongly about it. I hope that in years to come I and other hon. Members will not need to return to this issue to highlight further cruelty and suffering, when a sensible and rational change in the law will offer magistrates the power to penalise that minority of people who have so little regard for an animal's suffering. That will go a long way towards stamping out a serious and malicious evil.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Nigel Waterson, Dame Jill Knight, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Michael Stephen, Mr. Richard Spring and Mr. John Marshall.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS(AMENDMENT)

Mr. Harry Greenway accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954 to require the courts to order the disqualification for life from owning animals for any person convicted of severe cruelty to a companion animal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 February and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

Opposition Day

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Through Ticketing under Rail Privatisation

Madam Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I have not thought it right in this debate to limit speeches to 10 minutes, but I ask Back Benchers to exercise voluntary restraint in their speeches. In the spirit of the Jopling report, I also ask for the co-operation of Front Benchers to give Back Benchers opportunities to speak.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting the repeated assurances already given by Ministers that it will be mandatory for rail operators to ensure through-ticketing following the franchising of passenger services, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to guarantee that these promises will be honoured.
The aim of the motion is clear, simple and straightforward: that the unequivocal commitments that Ministers have made on several occasions that through ticketing will be fully maintained after privatisation shall be honoured. During the Second Reading of the Railways Bill on 2 February 1993, the then Minister for Public Transport, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), stated in the clearest terms:
we have said that it will be mandatory for rail operators to ensure through ticketing.
Later in the same speech he reiterated that point even more clearly when he said:
Through ticketing will be mandatory through the licensing system. Anyone who wants to run a passenger train service must ensure that through tickets are available for all journeys. That will be an obligation."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 242–58.]
On discounts, he further added:
I firmly believe that discounts on through tickets, which amount to 10 or 20 per cent. off the sum of the fares on individual lines, will continue. The intention is to continue to use British Rail's ticket issuing machinery."—[Official Report, 18 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 258.]
Similar binding commitments were given in another place. On Second Reading in their Lordships' House on 15 June 1993, Lord Caithness, speaking for the Government, stated:
Through ticketing will continue to operate across the network and operators will be required to participate in common ticketing and revenue allocation arrangements."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 1993; Vol. 546, c. 1428.]
In all those commitments, Ministers simply confirmed Government policy as it was expressly laid down in the White Paper of summer 1992. Paragraph 88 of the White Paper on network benefits states:
The Government is concerned to ensure that, so far as possible, passengers and freight customers continue to enjoy the advantages they get from a national rail system, including through ticketing, cross validity,"—
I think that that is another word for inter-availability —
discounted fares, and a national timetable. This will be taken into account in the arrangements made for timetabling and ticketing.

But Ministers went even further than that. In March 1994, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a leaflet for general distribution to the public entitled "Franchising of Rail Passenger Services". It is written in the form of questions and answers:
Can I still buy a through ticket to any destination?
Yes. Through tickets will continue to be available as at present.
I do not think that it could be any clearer than that.
Time and again, Ministers in both places have repeatedly made unequivocal commitments that, following the franchising of passenger services, through ticketing will continue to be available on exactly the same basis as at present. I remind the House that through tickets are now available at more than 1,300 stations throughout the country.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an early point in his speech. What does he mean by "on exactly the same basis"? I understand that, of about 2,500 stations in the British Rail system at present, only 440 offer a full through-ticketing and seat reservation service.

Mr. Meacher: The fact is that 1,316 stations are staffed and 1,580 stations currently offer through ticketing in one form or another. The Department's literature made it clear that arrangements would continue "as at present". That is what we are talking about; that is the key issue in today's debate.
It was reported 10 days ago that the Rail Regulator was expected to limit the purchase of through tickets to just: 294 core stations throughout the network. That produced an immediate and strong reaction from the Secretary of State, and I give him credit for that. On the Saturday he issued a press release saying:
If the regulator is proposing that the number of stations offering through ticketing should be fewer than now,"—
I emphasise those words—
that is unacceptable. There must be an improvement".
Presumably, he was referring to an improvement on the current position. However, 48 hours later he was back-pedalling fast. On Monday, he was forced to make the humiliating admission that the Rail Regulator, not the Minister, would have the final word in determining the number of stations offering through ticketing. With that admission, echoed several times by the Prime Minister and again yesterday, all the proud boasts, which have regularly been repeated by Ministers, that network benefits would be fully preserved under privatisation, collapsed ignominiously like a pack of cards.
As hon. Members will know, the right hon. Gentleman has sought to cover his embarrassment by putting forward three defences of his position. Each repays some examination. First, he makes out that the Rail Regulator's proposals are purely consultative, but even a cursory reading of the Rail Regulator's report can leave no one in any doubt that the other two options are purely tacked on as a cosmetic in order to allay the political furore that the main proposal provokes.
I presume that the Secretary of State is perfectly well aware that Mr. Swift devotes no fewer than 21 pages of his document to the issues arising from putting a limit on 294 core stations, while the other two options— one of which is to leave things as they are— get fewer than four pages. The thrust of the document is about eroding the


number of through-ticketing stations and the only argument is about how far and how fast that can be achieved. The document is consultative in name only.

Mr. George Kynoch: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that at present not only stations sell through tickets, but that there is a large network of travel agencies and telephone sales? Does he also accept that it would be in the interests of private operators to ensure that they get the best possible access to their potential customers of through tickets? Does not he accept, therefore, that there are ways of providing through tickets other than just through stations?

Mr. Meacher: No one is objecting if there is an improvement on the present position and there are more outlets for the sale of through tickets. We are objecting to the fact that the number of stations, which are used overwhelmingly for the purchase of through tickets, will be dramatically reduced.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Meacher: Anyone who reads the Rail Regulator's report knows perfectly well that that is the direction in which policy will go and, as I shall explain, the Secretary of State cannot stop it.
The right hon. Gentleman's second defence is that the Rail Regulator is laying down no more than minimum standards with which train operators must comply. He wants to believe that private operators will go further of their own accord. They may to some degree do so, but that is not the point.
Ministers gave repeated commitments, and their publicly distributed literature made it clear that through ticketing would continue as at present, and at present it is available at more than 1,300 stations across the country. They insisted that services for passengers would improve after privatisation, but no amount of fantasising by the Secretary of State will lead private operators to increase the number of through-ticketing stations to anywhere near 1,300.
The Rail Regulator has pulled the rug from under the Secretary of State when he concedes that private operators are unlikely to want to be burdened by excessive costs. The truth is that the Secretary of State's defence that minimum standards will be substantially bettered does not cut ice even with the regulator.

Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman mentioned minimum standards. Can he assist the House by saying what British Rail's present minimum standard is?

Mr. Meacher: I am well aware that one feeble excuse made by the Secretary of State is that there is no statutory binding commitment at present. The point is that the public know that they can go into more than 1,300 stations and buy a ticket to any destination that they choose. That facility will be eroded by the regulator's proposals.
The Secretary of State's third defence is that he can issue formal guidance to the regulator. Although that is true, it is worthless because the regulator does not have to comply. In Committee, Ministers reserved to themselves the power to override the regulator in two specific respects—the granting of exclusive franchises

and the limiting of track access charges. Significantly, both powers were designed to restrict competition on behalf of franchise bidders, not to assist passengers. The key point is that there are no other specific respects in which the Secretary of State can override the regulator.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this debate is the most appalling waste of time? Franchisees will want to maximise their ticket sales. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the post-nationalised British Airways and the Galileo system. The hon. Gentleman will find that computerised booking systems for every form of transport are developing fast throughout the world. At a time when national lottery tickets are available at petrol stations, newsagents and the like, through on-line computer terminals, this debate is farcical. We are entering a world of thousands of outlets.

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that commitments made by Ministers can be guaranteed and will be honoured, we shall be glad to welcome him in our Lobby tonight.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the hon. Gentleman in putting it to the Government that the system has already broken down. A letter dated 14 January, but which arrived on 16 January, bears out the fact that the commitment to a national network timetable has not been honoured. If one asks for an InterCity timetable at Waterloo station, one is told that Waterloo is not an InterCity station and is given a telephone number, which one must call to request a timetable to be sent. If the network provision of services is to be guaranteed by the regulator, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the regulator has already failed?

Mr. Meacher: I shall refer later to many aspects of the beginning of the erosion of inter-availability and national timetabling systems.
Ministers have repeatedly affirmed that there will be no reduction in through ticketing after privatisation. The regulator, on the other hand, is clearly determined to reduce core stations offering through ticketing to perhaps as few as one in eight of Britain's 2,500 stations—and the Secretary of State cannot lift a finger to stop him. The right hon. Gentleman, in all his splendid isolation and irrelevance, sits there like a beached whale. He is a monument to the crass ineptitude of a privatisation that is fast running out of control. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman is wholly unable to carry through the commitments that his predecessors gave, and he is being humiliated by what the regulator is doing.
The absurdity goes even further. We are told that the list of 294 was drawn up using a set of criteria to ensure that the key towns and cities, airports and recognised commercial centres would have core stations. The bizarre result is that travellers will be able to buy tickets to any destination from the Kyle of Lochalsh—a little-used station that is also a port on the west coast of Scotland—or from Ryde Esplanade on the Isle of Wight, or from Llandrindod Wells in mid-Wales, through which only three trains a day pass.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Spell it.

Mr. Meacher: Conservative Members are being exceedingly silly, because they know that they have no defence against the thrust of our argument. They are


deeply embarrassed by the way in which commitments have been given, which the Government are now totally incapable of carrying through.
At the same time, some of the stations at which ticket sales will be limited are among the busiest in Britain. They include Lichfield in Staffordshire, with two stations and 185 trains a day. It will have no core station. Yeovil in Somerset, a base for Britain's aerospace industry, will be without one, too. Under the regulator's proposals, there will be an 88-mile stretch between Salisbury and Exeter, with Yeovil at its centre, with no core station. Thus a passenger wishing to travel from Yeovil to Birmingham will have to detour to Bristol or to Swindon to get a through ticket. [Laughter.] I agree, it is laughable. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is right to laugh. It is an absurdity that beggars belief.

Sir Donald Thompson: The Labour party Front-Bench spokesman has been kind enough to show that party's quinquennial interest in my constituency by naming a few stations there. My constituents are convinced that the privatisation of the railway industry will be as successful as the privatisation of British Airways. The railway industry will have a chance to compete, just as BA and BT compete. The hon. Gentleman is stuck in the steam train era.

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for that intervention. The whole House would like to know how the hon. Gentleman intends to justify to his constituents the fact that two of the stations in his constituency, Hebden Bridge and Todmorden, core stations at present, will, under the regulator's proposals, cease to be so. Perhaps he will explain that to the House—if he catches Madam Speaker's eye.
It beggars belief that it is seriously intended, as part of the privatisation of the rail system, that the number of stations selling through tickets should be reduced by 80 per cent; and that as a result people will be expected, when necessary, to divert to another station on the same line—or even, from there, to another station on another line. They must then get off the train to buy a through ticket. Having purchased it, they will almost certainly find that their train has already departed, and they will have to wait for the next connection. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to tell us why he finds that so funny. Millions of rail passengers will find it quite intolerable. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman sits there giggling just shows his contempt for millions of people around this country.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Subject to catching Madam Speaker's eye, I shall have an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Meacher: Instead of the Secretary of State looking so pleased with himself, perhaps he will accept that I should be pleased if, on this crucial issue, he intervened in my speech. I should be glad to give way to him. Perhaps he would like to explain. We shall be waiting for his explanation, but noting that he seems extraordinarily reluctant to give it following my offer to allow him to intervene.

Mr. John Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No. I am concerned with the Secretary of State.
Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling us that what I have described is the new Tory vision of a smart and efficient railway system, or if it is not, that there is nothing that he can do to stop it happening?
On Monday, the Prime Minister at his press conference, which I believe was designed to prop up sagging Conservative party morale, announced that he intended to turn Britain's railways from a stand-up comedian's joke into the envy of the world. Not for the first time, the irony of the situation seems to be sadly lost on the Prime Minister. It is he and his policies that are the stand-up comedian's joke. Proposals such as the one that we are discussing are making him and his Government the laughing stock of the western world. Even Harry Enfield could not have managed to produce a better script.
Why are the Government in such a position? It is riot because the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are stupid. None the less, they obviously fail to recognise the consequences of their policies.
The internal contradictions of privatisation are driving events in the direction that I outlined.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on his point about internal contradictions?

Mr. Meacher: I do not believe for a moment that the hon. Gentleman will intervene on that point. He has been persistent, however, in his efforts to intervene, and I am glad to give way to him.

Mr. Brandreth: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants to make an announcement about his policy on the railways, he at least makes it himself, whereas the Leader of the Opposition has his press secretary sort it out for him.
The hon. Gentleman is either being mischievous or is hopelessly muddled. We are talking about a consultation document. A minimum standard is being talked about. Two of the purposes of the exercise of privatisation are to improve service and to increase the availability of tickets. That is what the thrust will be. The hon. Gentleman must understand and recognise that. That is why we find what he is saying risible. There is no thrust to his argument. He is tilting at illusory windmills.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is not a silly man—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Oh yes he is.

Mr. Meacher: He is not silly by the standards of Conservative Members, but he is being disingenuous. If the Government's proposals are about improving standards, why is it that there is not one line in the regulator's report about improving the current system? The report is all about worsening it. The only issue is the degree to which and the speed with which that will come about. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a consultative exercise is taking place, perhaps he is sillier than I thought. If he reads the report, he will find that it is clearly about severely reducing the number of stations that can offer through ticketing. The key point is that, consultative exercise or whatever, the Secretary of State cannot stop whatever the regulator decides to implement.
Why are the Government in such a situation? The regulator did not propose 294 stations because—

Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way again.
The regulator did not make that proposal because he wanted to improve—

Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and I shall not give way again.
The reason—

Mr. Kynoch: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Meacher: The regulator did not propose 294 core stations because he wanted to improve services for passengers. That never entered his head. When asked whether he considered that passengers should be no more than an hour's drive from a core station selling through tickets, he said, amazingly enough, that he had considered that, but he thought that the value of such a criterion "was not obvious".
The irrelevance of the interests of passengers could hardly be clearer. The reason why the regulator wants to cut the number of core stations by 80 per cent.—meaning that people will be forced to travel up to 50 miles out of their way to buy a through ticket, which is of absolutely no interest to him—is to secure a sale of the passenger franchises at any cost.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman persists like that, I shall certainly not give way.

Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Opposition spokesman told the House a moment ago that the regulator's report did not mention improvements in services at all, whereas—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order at all. It is a point of argument. It is not a matter for me what the regulator says. There has been no breach of Standing Orders or of our procedures here.

Mr. Gary Streeter: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) must try to correct the Opposition spokesman in debate, not through a point of order.

Mr. Streeter: But surely when an hon. Member misleads the House—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me try to explain the art of debate in Parliament. If hon. Members feel that another hon. Member is quoting incorrectly or is giving incorrect information, the way to correct that is to catch my eye. That is the way to do it, not through a point of order. Do we all understand now how points of order should be used and what the art of debate is? Very good.

Mr. Meacher: Before those bogus points of order were made, I was explaining that the real motive for what the House is debating today is to secure the sale of the

passenger franchises at any cost. That is what underpins the debate. The Secretary of State said on 14 December that he intended to effect the sale of at least 50 per cent. of those franchises by April 1996. The fact is that there is such investor apathy about the sales that minimising the conditions that franchisees must meet, as in through ticketing, is a vital part of the exercise, and the interests of the passengers come absolutely nowhere. That is the first reason why this zany proposal has emerged.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sees any correlation between the argument that he is making now and what happened with British Gas. Is he aware that British Gas closed a number of showrooms in which people could pay their gas bills, but at the same time it did a deal with the Post Office, which means that there are 20,000 new places where people can pay their bills? Does he regard that as an improvement for the customer or a decline in the service? I regard it as an improvement.

Mr. Meacher: I do not think that there is any parallel at all, for the simple reason that people expect to be able to go to stations to buy through tickets. If they can buy them at the local taxi company or the local showroom, fine, but that is not an acceptable substitute for a reduction of 80 per cent. in the number of through-ticket stations.
There is a second reason, too, for this ridiculous proposal. If one breaks up an integrated national rail system into 85 different companies, which is what the Government are doing, one is forced to devolve ultimate power in policing the railways to an independent regulator and his staff, to prevent the conflicting interests that have been unleashed getting out of control. Once one gives such power to an unelected quango, one is handing over to an unaccountable body extremely sensitive political decisions that should be taken only by a political representative. But that, of course, is precisely the logic of privatisation. That is why it is so flawed. That is why a large and growing majority of the population is so passionately opposed to this privatisation.

Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No. I shall not give way again.
Those people know that it is madness to split up a single integrated rail system into 85 separate, conflicting companies, which will produce a mountain of bureaucracy. They are opposed because they do not want the regulatory and safety framework of the railways undermined. They are opposed because they know that services will have to be cut drastically in order to generate the profits that shareholders demand, pushing the railways into a vicious spiral where higher fares will lead to fewer passengers, which will then force fares still higher. They are opposed to £700 million being frittered away in City and legal fees, money that could have been far better spent on redressing crumbling investment.
A growing majority of the population is opposed because there are no guarantees on season tickets or off-peak fares, because inter-availability is already being eroded and because the blight on investment imposed by privatisation is already producing serious damage. Temporary speed limits have had to be imposed on several lines because major track renewal work is simply not being done. Back-up for train breakdowns has been cut to the bone, so that one lost train can now wreck a day's timetable as cancellations and delays build up and,


as we found in our recent survey, trains are increasingly having to run on no spares, so that branch line trains are having to be transferred to keep busier lines operating.
In his amendment to our motion, the Secretary of State talks about his plans to reverse the decline in rail use. But the facts are clear. The biggest barrier to greater rail use in Britain at present is the Secretary of State and his privatisation plans. The large-scale abandonment of through-ticketing stations is but the first of the disasters that will hit millions of passengers if rail privatisation is allowed to proceed.
The regulator has made a monkey of the Secretary of State and all that the right hon. Gentleman can do is to repeat plaintively that it was Parliament that decided that there should be a regulator. He has made no mention of the fact that it was not Parliament but Ministers who decided to privatise the railways in the first place, not Parliament but Ministers who decided that there should be 85 separate companies that required regulation, and not Parliament but the Secretary of State's predecessor who guaranteed that through ticketing would be fully protected in the privatised system.
It is Ministers who have produced this mess. It is Parliament that can still stop it. In the 60 most marginal Tory seats, there are now 173 stations. Under the regulator's proposals, only 24 of those will be core stations selling through tickets. Tory Members of Parliament have a clear and straight choice tonight. Either they take the Secretary of State at his word that any cut in through ticketing would be unacceptable and support our motion, or they support the Whips and vote down their constituents. But I give them this warning. This is a campaign on which we shall not let up until we have stopped this detested privatisation in its tracks by the next election.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining through ticketing; welcomes the publication by the Rail Regulator of the Consultation Document 'Retailing of Tickets at Stations'; endorses the view expressed in the document that the continuation of network benefits such as through ticketing 'will be one of the key tests of the success of the restructuring of the industry'; notes that despite massive investment in British Rail the proportion of travel undertaken and freight moved by train has steadily decreased during nationalisation; and supports the Government's commitment to seeking to reverse this decline through the creation of a flourishing railway system operated by the private sector which will offer a better deal for passengers and for freight customers.".
I have always thought that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) wanted to enter the Labour party's hall of fame of bons mots which go down in history and are remembered, such as that of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), on the Gas Bill, who said:
There is no evidence that the Bill will … produce cheaper gas".—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 780.]
or that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who said that the British Steel Bill was
totally irrelevant to the real interests of the industry, and it is based on dogma. The Labour party is unequivocally, implacably opposed to it".—[Oflicial Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 238.]
About British Airways, the same hon. Gentleman said:
It will be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 125.]

I invite my hon. Friends to read Hansard tomorrow and perhaps we can have a ballot on which of the statements made today by the hon. Member for Oldham, West will go down alongside those bons mots of expressions of Labour party policy. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman because he has not had a comfortable week. Last Wednesday, this debate seemed like a good idea to him. I bet that he regrets it now.
Last week, the hon. Gentleman appeared to be in charge of Labour's policy—whatever it is. Today, the whole country knows that it is not the hon. Gentleman who controls Labour's policy, but the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). On Sunday afternoon, it was the hon. Gentleman who was to be on Monday morning's "Today" programme with me; by Sunday evening, he had been dumped.
Today's debate is entitled "Through Ticketing under Rail Privatisation". I wish to deal with the issue of through ticketing first, but I assure Opposition Members that I shall then deal with the privatisation issue, as did the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Who is in charge of the Government's policy? Why did the Government make so many promises to maintain through ticketing, and then hand over that policy to an unelected, unaccountable regulator?

Dr. Mawhinney: If the hon. Gentleman waits a moment, he will have the answer to his question.
The Government's commitment to through ticketing is absolutely clear: it has been a constant theme of our privatisation proposals. It was in our 1992 election manifesto, and in the White Paper that we published in July of that year; it was reiterated when we introduced our legislation at the beginning of 1993, and it is now in the Railways Act. Section 4 of that Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote measures to facilitate journeys involving more than one operator, and states specifically that through ticketing is one such measure. The same duty applies equally to the regulator, and it was in the exercise of that duty that he published his consultation document on the retailing of tickets at stations.
I should also remind the House that the regulator issues licences under a general authority from the Secretary of State. The general authority issued to him on 31 March last year makes it clear that he is obliged to include through-ticketing requirements in the licences that he issues.
In addition, Parliament has given the regulator responsibility for protecting passengers' interests, and the decision on what ticket retailing requirements should be imposed is for him, although it is open to me to give him guidance under the Railways Act. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Oldham, West was wrong: the regulator is not free to ignore that guidance as though it had not been given. He is under a statutory obligation to take account of it.

Mr. George Stevenson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: Not yet. As I have said, the regulator is under a statutory obligation. In other circumstances, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has ascribed some importance to that.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: I will in a moment.
As the regulator is turning his mind to the issue of ticket retailing for the first time, he has decided to issue a consultation document to establish the views of those who would be affected by the requirements—the operators and, importantly, the passengers.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: I said that I would give way in a moment.
That is an entirely new development. In the past, no one consulted passengers about the kind of ticket retailing requirements that they wanted from the railways. Again for the first time, the regulator proposes that passengers should have guarantees that a specific level of ticket retailing service will be safeguarded.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: I said that I would in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little progress, I will come back to him.
Neither of the two new services that I have just described operated in the old public-sector railway, and both are characteristic of the future rather than of the past.
The regulator's document contains three options—a requirement that operators maintain the current ticketing arrangements unless they can justify any changes to the regulator; the designation of core stations that will be required to offer the full range of ticketing facilities, with operators left free to decide what services to offer at other stations; and a two-tier approach, with core stations providing the full range of tickets and a less demanding requirement to be placed on other stations. The regulator is not committed to any particular option. He will carefully consider the responses that he receives before reaching any decision. The hon. Gentleman should be more careful about what he says in public about the regulator than he was in the debate. I shall quote what the regulator said on "Newsnight" on 11 January because, as my hon. Friends will understand, it goes precisely to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument and blows it away. The regulator said:
I have never committed myself to a plan to reduce the number of stations at which through tickets can be bought to 294. That is absolutely absurd.

Mr. Stevenson: I was a bit worried that the Secretary of State might have gone beyond this point before giving way. Given his commitment that the present level of through ticketing would be maintained, if after the consultation the regulator produces a plan to reduce the availability, what will the Secretary of State do to maintain the commitment?

Dr. Mawhinney: The Leader of the Opposition put that question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister

yesterday, and the Prime Minister answered in exactly the same terms as I have answered. It is all in the record for the hon. Gentleman to read. [Interruption.]
The regulator and I have the same statutory objective: we both want an improvement in passenger services. The idea, which is absurd—to use the regulator's word—that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been peddling to the House does not fall within the statutory remit that the House gave to the regulator. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that that is the essence of the consultation document.
If I were to tell the House that there would be so many stations providing a certain service at a certain cost on certain days, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would say, "Why have a regulator and a consultation process in the first place? Why is the Secretary of State standing at the Dispatch Box and undermining the regulator's role?" That is exactly the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition.
If the Opposition had voted in Committee against having a regulator with such powers perhaps the House would be more impressed by their arguments now.

Mr. Stevenson: I am trying to help the Secretary of State because he is clearly in a hole of his own making. I thought that he would have reached the part of his script that would have given me some answers but he has not, so I will repeat the question. If, after the consultation, the regulator comes up with a reduced number of stations that can provide through ticketing, what will the Secretary of State do to honour the commitment given by him and by the Prime Minister to maintain the present level? Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer the question?

Dr. Mawhinney: I do not propose to anticipate what the regulator will produce by way of a response. I reaffirm to the hon. Gentleman the statutory requirement that through ticketing will be available and will be maintained. I remind him that I have the opportunity to provide statutory guidance to the regulator on that point, if I judge it necessary. So that everybody understands it, the fundamental difference between us is that we have plans to create an environment in which it will be advantageous for operators to do what passengers want. The hon. Gentleman is firmly in the grip of those trade unionists who want no change and, indeed, want to go backwards.
I reaffirm that I have also made it clear that the idea that the retailing of through tickets should be restricted to 294 stations is unacceptable. The regulator and I are as one on that. As he said in the same interview from which I have already quoted:
So far as I am concerned there is no difference at all between my objectives and the objectives of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, that is to get better value for the passengers and better services.
Lest anyone doubt the regulator's commitment to ensuring that passengers' interests are protected, I shall quote from his document, which states:
Privatisation and restructuring of the railways are intended to improve services to customers and stimulate innovation. In looking at new proposals to replace British Rail's current arrangements I will want to be satisfied that they are likely to achieve these objectives.


He also said:
In going out to consultation on the issue of ticket retailing at stations, I want to be satisfied that there will be a better rail network and better use of the network by reason of the decisions I take.

Ms Jean Corston: As the Secretary of State appears to be incapable of dealing with reasonable questions from my hon. Friends, which reflect the genuine concerns of our constituents, I shall put a simple question to him. What advice would he give to my 81-year-old father who lives in Yeovil, has no credit card and so would not be able to make telephone bookings and who regularly travels to Bristol to visit me? How would he get his tickets?

Dr. Mawhinney: I advise the gentleman to do two things—first, not to vote for his local Member of Parliament, and secondly, not to listen to his daughter. What his daughter and her right hon. and hon. Friends are doing is trying to scare him into believing that something will be the case when in fact the very Act of Parliament on which the proposal is based makes it clear that our aim is to produce a better service rather than a worse one.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party should make it absolutely plain this afternoon that the price of a deal between Labour and the trades union bosses is the handing over of British Rail under a Labour Government—if there were to be one—to be run by the trades unions?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend anticipates what I had already warned the House would form the second part of my speech. After I deal with through ticketing I shall deal with privatisation.
The regulator is proposing minimum obligatory standards which will be imposed on operators. That is also new. Under its old nationalised structure British Rail was under no such obligations. The same was true for other aspects of its operations. It was free to vary levels of service—and it did—subject only to very general constraints such as the statutory closure procedures. The railway operated under a system of bureaucratic centralised control with BR taking all the decisions—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West need not sigh; it happens to be the truth. It is slightly depressing that he does not recognise the truth.
Under privatisation things are improving. Not only will passengers get better services, they will have specific safeguards for levels of service. Henceforth, passenger services will be provided under franchise agreements that provide clear contractual obligations that operators have to meet, unlike now. They will have to provide a specified level of service set out in the passenger service requirement. They will have to meet specific standards of punctuality and reliability, unlike now. They will have to provide discounted travel for the elderly, young and disabled and—where necessary—there will be safeguards against excessive fare increases. So under privatisation passengers can look to enjoy not just better, more efficient services, but greater security that the railways will be run for their benefit.
Let me repeat—the regulator is seeking to establish a minimum requirement to act as a safeguard. I do not believe that that minimum will in any way become the norm. It is self-evidently in the interests of operators to

make their tickets widely available. Indeed, it will be more in their interests to do that in the future than it is in BR's interests now.

Mr. McLoughlin: Is not the difference between the Government and the Labour party that we are not prepared to see the railway industry fossilised, as it has been for some time? Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are not bothered if they buy their rail tickets at a station? They want to know that they have access to tickets, whether from a shopping centre or a railway station.

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is exactly right.
Ticket retailing will be an important part of a franchisee's business. It is his main interface with his customer. I expect operators to build on the current arrangements, using the new technology available to provide a better ticket retailing service to passengers. They do not need to be told that. No one tells the airline industry how to retail its tickets, but it has developed sophisticated, flexible and highly effective ticketing systems admirably suited to the needs of its customers. I believe that the privatised railway will do the same.
I confirm the point made earlier by some of my hon. Friends. There is a widespread myth that all BR stations provide a full range of ticketing facilities. Even now, ticket availability at individual stations is restricted by limitations on staff resources, fares information about remote journeys and ticket-issuing equipment. At least 1,200 of BR's stations are totally unmanned and offer no staffed ticketing facility, and only about 440 stations have direct access to the seat reservation data.
Ticket retailing will not be confined to stations. Some operators will choose to sell tickets on trains. Telephone sales will become more usual. There will continue to be sales through self-service ticket machines, and travel agents will have a role to play. Large organisations with staff using the railways will continue to be able to use travel warrants.
So the position is clear. Through ticketing will be maintained and passengers can have an influence on its form by responding to the regulator's consultative document. For the first time in history, they can influence the sort of service that they would like to enjoy. Passengers will enjoy an expanding range of services as franchisees develop policies to satisfy existing passengers and to attract new ones.

Dr. John Marek: rose—

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: Not at the moment.
More broadly, competition on the railways will offer passengers and freight customers a better deal. Do not take just my word for it. I remember being impressed by an impassioned speech which I heard at a party conference in Blackpool a few years ago. The speaker said:
Nothing would more stimulate a change of attitude to the travelling passenger, than allowing a little competition for the privilege of our custom".
I agree. That is why we are privatising the railways.
Incidentally, the House will want to know that those words were spoken by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He


seems to have changed his mind. What is the right hon. Gentleman's policy today? Does he still want to see competition on our railways? If so, he and his hon. Friends will be voting with the Government this evening. If he does not, it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friends. His party does not change. It says one thing in one place and does something different somewhere else. Never judge a Liberal by his words—just look at how he votes.
But I digress. Let me turn, for a moment, to the amazing performance of the Labour Front Bench in response to the regulator's consultation document. My hon. Friends may have thought that today was pretty amazing, but today was not the first occasion.
The hon. Members for Oldham, West, for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) each issued a press release. Taken together, they were an embarrassment to Labour. [Interruption.] Let me help the hon. Members. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, on behalf of Labour, thought that the regulator's three options were all different and he picked the one that he liked. The hon. Member for Fife, Central, on behalf of Labour, condemned all three options, saying that they all
amount to the same thing".
The hon. Member for Fife, Central, on behalf of Labour, claimed that I had been "humiliated" by the regulator. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, on behalf of Labour, said that I had hung the regulator "out to dry". The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, on behalf of Labour, said:
I understand Mr. Swift threatened to resign … That is why Mawhinney backed off.
On "Newsnight" the regulator replied:
I certainly did not threaten to resign.
The interviewer said:
That's what Labour are saying.
and John Swift said, "Well, they are wrong". What a shambles. It is no wonder that the Labour party cannot formulate a policy; it cannot even formulate a sensible press release.
Certain facts are not in dispute. Since nationalisation, under Governments of both parties, £54 billion has been invested in the railways. Every Conservative Government since the war has increased investment in British Rail. Since 1979, the Government have invested more than £15 billion in British Rail—more than £6.5 billion in the past five years. Yet, the proportion of all travel undertaken by train has fallen dramatically. In 1953, 17 per cent. of all travel was by train. Today, it is 5 per cent. In 1953, 24 per cent. of all freight was moved by train. Today it is 5 per cent.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: Not at the moment.
To be fair to the Labour party, in speeches, the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his hon. Friends have said the same as we have. Both parties have said that

they want to halt the decline and reverse it. That is common ground between us. The question that each party must answer is—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If the Labour party wishes to increase the use of the railways, can my right hon. Friend explain why it backed the signalmen's strike?

Dr. Mawhinney: That is a good question. I do not have a clue about the answer and I suspect that Labour Members do not know either. Each party must say how it plans to reverse that trend.

Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: No, I will not.
We plan to do that by injecting into the railway industry private finance, private management skills, privately driven investment decisions and private sector sensitivity to what the customer wants. We believe that that will work.
What about the Labour party? Let me tell the House the Labour party's position as I understand it. At the Labour party conference in October the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pledged:
The next Labour Government will reverse the break-up and privatisation of Britain's railways.
That is fairly straightforward.
On 24 November, the hon. Member for Oldham, West—he is now taking refuge in a conversation because this is becoming too embarrassing—refused to back that pledge. All that he would say was:
Labour remains wholly committed to a publicly owned rail system.

Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: I will not give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has noticed that the Secretary of State is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman should not continue to stand up. Perhaps he will leave a decent interval before trying to intervene again.

Dr. Mawhinney: On new year's eve the Leader of the Opposition told the "Today" programme that he could not give any
cast-iron commitments in one direction or another
about renationalisation.
On 9 January the Leader of the Opposition said:
I'm not going to get into a situation where I am declaring that the Labour Government is going to commit sums of money to renationalisation.
On 10 January the hon. Member for Oldham, West was twisting and turning on the "Today" programme. He said:
if you are asking me to set out now at this moment in time exactly what we would do in the light of the state of the economy, which we do not know about, when we do not know how much of the industry and what way it has been privatised in conditions which cannot be foreseen, I cannot sensibly give that answer, but our commitment to the objective is very clear.
Whatever that is, it is not a policy.
Last Monday, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East refused to confirm that Labour was committed to renationalisation. This Monday he told the "Today" programme:
We're going to make it a publicly owned, publicly accountable railway.


Alastair Campbell, lately of the Daily Mirror and Today and now co-ordinating Labour's public messages—he must have a headache today—told David Frost on 15 January:
There is a commitment that there will be a publicly owned, publicly accountable railway under a Labour Government.

Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: No, I will not.
Yesterday the hon. Member for Oldham, West said that the commitment given on Monday by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was merely an "option". What a shambles. The Labour party does not have a policy on through ticketing because it does not have a policy on the railways. Why the shifting? Why the twisting and turning?
I am not a cynical man—

Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot just stand on the Back Benches and ask the Secretary of State to give way. It is up to any right hon. or hon. Member to decide whether to give way. Clearly, the Secretary of State does not wish to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Mawhinney: This is a short debate. I am coming to the end and I want to allow time for my hon. Friends to contribute.
As I have said, I am not a cynical man, but if I were I might be inclined to think that the twisting and turning may he something to do with clause IV. I wonder whether it is possible that the Labour party may have been influenced by Vernon Hince of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. On 10 January on the "Today" programme he said that the
Labour party is committed to fighting privatisation before it happens and we would see it being returned to public ownership under a Labour Government.
That is pretty clear. In case it was not clear enough, in Tribune on 13 January, Jimmy Knapp said:
We expect a … Labour Government to renationalise any part of the rail network that has been sold, including Railtrack.
John Edmonds said that renationalisation was "a very popular move".
So much for the "new" Labour party. It is just the same old Labour party—full of socialism and driven by the unions.
Working out Labour's position on rail privatisation is like catching a train.
If you miss a policy, don't worry … there'll be another one along in an hour or two.
Does Labour really have a clue what is going on? Because we don't.
Last week Tony Blair refused to commit himself on whether Labour would re-nationalise the railways.
Then John Prescott jumped in. Labour wanted a 'publicly owned, publicly accountable' rail system.
That kept the unions and the Left-wingers happy.
But yesterday, Mr. Prescott decided to clarify everything—and as only he can, made everything as clear as mud.
Labour wouldn't take the railways straight back into public ownership, he appeared to say.
British Rail would be allowed to challenge for franchises (which it can under the Tory plans in any case). Confused? Of course you are.
But what do you expect from a party that seems to be making it up as it goes along?

That comes from the editorial in The Sunyesterday. I wish that I was half as eloquent in condemning the nonsense from the Labour party. It leaves unanswered the fundamental question that I have put to the House which is how the Labour party plans to reverse the decline of the railway industry. It takes me back to what the Leader of the Opposition said. Last Wednesday, at a remarkably candid press conference, he told us that the British people did not trust the Labour party. He said:
1995 is the year in which Labour will finally re-establish a bond of trust with the British people".
That means that the British people do not trust them at the moment.
One of the reasons why the British people do not trust the Labour party is that the Labour party will not tell them what it has in store for them. Will it tell them what it has in store for them on education? No way. On devolution? No way. On the railways'? No way. I tried to be helpful to the Leader of the Opposition by asking some questions, but it is not only me that is asking them—radio arid television journalists and newspaper reporters across the country have been seeking answers, too.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a debate about through ticketing. Would it be in order for the Secretary of State to get back to the issue before the House instead of debating more general issues?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman is invited to take the Chair, he will be in a position to judge what is in order. Apart from his point of order, I judge that the rest of the debate has been in order.

Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not raise bogus points of order. A number of Members have sought to intervene and will continue to seek to catch your eye. A number of Labour Members are sponsored and controlled by trade unions but have not declared their interest. Will you please require all interventions from the hon. Members for Hampstead (Ms Jackson), for York (Mr. Bayley), for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and for Wrexham' (Dr. Marek) and others, to declare their interest and the fact that they are controlled by transport and railway unions?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take other points of order in a moment. I shall rule on one at a time. It is entirely up to hon. Members to decide when to declare their interests. It is a matter of honour for individual hon. Members.

Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a new point of order.

Mr. Berry: It is. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) when that hon. Member is not present? I thought that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) was referring to me although I represent Kingswood. I wanted to put the


record straight on that point and to make it clear that I and my colleagues are not controlled by the Transport and General Workers Union.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members of all parties want to make a positive contribution. I suggest that we get back to the substance of the debate.

Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am, of course, sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers but I receive no pecuniary benefit. I object to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) saying that I am controlled by a union. It is very objectionable and does not befit the dignity of an hon. Member. May I ask him through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to withdraw his accusation which is palpably untrue? Every hon. Member says only what he believes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I believe that hon. Members behave honourably and that they are all equal in this respect. I think that we can let the matter rest there.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was hoping that the hon. Lady wanted to intervene.

Ms Jackson: Is it in order for an hon. Member to allege that another hon. Member attempted to conceal sponsorship when the latter has not made or attempted to make an intervention?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are entirely responsible for what they do and say. There are plenty of methods available to hon. Members to respond to any allegations that may or may not be made.

Dr. Mawhinney: I remind the House that this is an Opposition day. They picked the subject and the title and included privatisation in the motion. I am merely speaking to the amendment to Labour's motion.
Let us return to the fact that the British people do not trust the Labour party. They do not trust the Labour party because the Labour party will not tell them what it has in store for them. As I was saying, it is not only me asking the questions—television, radio and newspaper reporters are asking them, too. My goodness, even the "Today" programme has started to ask them.
I wanted to be helpful to the Leader of the Opposition so I wrote to him last Friday. I asked six simple questions and wanted six straight answers. I did not ask for warm words or for him to smile at me; I wanted six straight answers. I have not yet had a reply to my letter so I am going to give the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is putatively in charge of Labour's policy, the opportunity to answer.
Does the hon. Gentleman intend to renationalise the railways? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If he does plan to do so, will compensation be paid to the shareholders of Railtrack? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Precisely how would passenger services be brought back under state control in view of the fact that legal franchises and

contracts would govern the use of the railways? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If the hon. Gentleman and his party do not plan to renationalise the railways, what changes would they make in the way that the railways are run? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is amazing to my hon. Friends that I still have to ask such questions, but there was no hint of an answer in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The fifth question is how would—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is in enough trouble without the input of his Back Bench colleagues. How would he fulfil Labour's commitment to encourage more passengers and freight onto the railways? Would he invest more in the railways and, if so, how much would the shadow Chancellor allow him?
Unlike Labour, we have a policy to reverse the decline in our railways. We are creating a modern railway. Our battle cry on behalf of passengers and businesses is, "Forward to the 21st century." Labour's battle cry on behalf of the unions is, "Forward to 1945". The Opposition do not have a policy on the railways; they have only a motion. Given the antics of their Front Bench spokesman, it is almost certainly a composite motion. I invite the House to vote against it and to do so with the disdain—

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has been on his feet for 40 minutes but just before Christmas the House approved the Jopling proposals which state that Ministers should not speak for more than 30 minutes. As the Secretary of State is not even speaking to the motion, do you think that you could advise him that it is time that he allowed Back Benchers to speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In answer to one of the hon. Gentleman's points, the Secretary of State's speech has been in order. Whether or not it was to the liking of hon. Members is not a matter for the Chair. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he said about the Jopling proposals, which have been approved for a trial period. They state clearly that Ministers and Front Bench spokesmen should be encouraged to speak for no more than about 30 minutes.

Dr. Mawhinney: On that note, I invite the House to vote for the amendment. I also invite the House to vote against the motion and to do so with the disdain that it so richly deserves.

Ms Glenda Jackson: As I invariably do if fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in debates on the railway and the rail industry, I declare an interest as the only hon. Member to be sponsored by ASLEF, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen.
I well understand why the Secretary of State and Tory Members do not regard today's debate as a good idea, but I assure them that Opposition Members regard it as a very good idea—as do the 64 per cent. of the British people who totally oppose privatisation of British Rail. In the last analysis, the arguments for and against privatisation boil down to one fundamental question: will privatisation provide a better or a poorer service for those who depend on the railways?
Last week we had one of the first major announcements on the practical service implications of privatisation: the Rail Regulator's proposals on through ticketing. He came up with three proposals. The first was to allow what he called "incremental change" to the current arrangements until operators could, to use the regulator's own words,
justify a reduction in the prescribed services at stations".
The second proposal recommended what would amount to the virtual annihilation of through ticketing by reducing from 1,300 to 294 the number of outlets providing a through-ticket service, forcing passengers in some instances to travel up to 50 miles simply to buy a ticket. The third proposal was something of a hotchpotch and involved reducing the number of origins and destinations served by through ticketing. The Secretary of State failed to explain which of the options—slashing the current service, instantly reducing the current scope of the service or gradually reducing the scope of the current service—could possibly be deemed to provide a better service for railway customers.
There was a time when Ministers were robust in defending the future of through ticketing. In Committee on the Railways Bill, the former Minister with responsibility for railways said:
Through ticketing will be mandatory … Anyone who wants to run a passenger train service must ensure that through tickets are available for all journeys … That will be an obligation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 February 1993; c. 258.]
Unfortunately, that promise has proved to be as empty as our stations and trains will be if the proposals are implemented, and almost as empty as the pledge given by the current Secretary of State for Transport who said last Saturday that he would not allow the proposal to stand but then on Monday said that there was nothing that he could do and that it was all a matter for the regulator.
What I find particularly amazing about through ticketing and Ministers' responses is the way in which they appear to have been caught completely unawares by the proposals that the regulator has published. The Secretary of State initially said that they were unacceptable to him. But what, in all honesty, did he expect? It has always been in the interests of British Rail, as a single entity, to provide access to all its services at all points of the system. Now that British Rail is to be fragmented, however, what possible incentive is there for operators to retail tickets on behalf of other operators, many of whom are their direct competitors?
The Secretary of State referred to ticketing facilities for airlines. Would he seriously expect British Airways to sell tickets on behalf of Virgin or vice versa? I do not believe that I would be the only person prepared to pay good money to see the Secretary of State for Transport try to explain to Sir Colin Marshall that he is expected to sell tickets for Richard Branson; there would be an international audience wanting to watch such an attempt.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jackson: No, I will not give way.
The present ridiculous situation has come about solely and directly because of the Government's privatisation proposals. The services provided to passengers before privatisation will he reduced or totally withdrawn after privatisation. How can that be good for the customer?
I have not given an isolated example of the effect that privatisation will have on service quality. On Second Reading of the Railways Bill, the then Secretary of State

for Transport was asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) whether rail privatisation would improve reliability, improve infrastructure and improve rolling stock. The Secretary of State said:
The answer to all three questions is yes".—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 158.]

Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jackson: No.
Rail privatisation was to bring us greater reliability. The headline of a copy of a press release issued in December last year by the London Regional Passengers Committee, an independent organisation set up by statute to represent the interests of rail users, stated:
Performance Crumbles as New Rail Structure Takes Shape". SHAPE".
It continues:
the weaknesses of the new rail industry structure are beginning to appear, and the short-term outlook is bleak … Already, punctuality is falling on most commuter lines into London, and cancellation rates are up … The outlook for British Rail's passengers is grim indeed.
We were promised that rail privatisation would improve reliability; as the group set up by statute to monitor service quality on behalf of the public says, however, far from improving reliability, privatisation is eroding it.
The House will recall that we were also promised that rail privatisation would improve infrastructure. I have a copy of the December issue of the magazine of the Railway Development Society, "Railwatch". On the front page is an interview with Mr. John Ellis, production director of Railtrack, who states:
We will not necessarily support every station or every route … We want to develop the network as far as we can but it will be on a commercial basis. We cannot and should not take into account social issues.
He added, for good measure:
I don't see us doing much re-equipping on the branch lines.
We were promised that rail privatisation would improve infrastructure; yet Railtrack's own production manager admits that the quality of infrastructure on the branch lines will be allowed to deteriorate and the social value of the rail network will no longer be taken into account.
Finally, we were promised that rail privatisation would improve rolling stock. That is the cruellest of all the broken promises that Ministers have used to bolster this broken piece of legislation. Far from improving rolling stock, the proposals mean that for the first time in its history British Rail has no new rolling stock on its order books.

Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jackson: No, the hon. Lady will not give way.
An advertisement in last Friday's edition of Kent Today, placed on behalf of the ABB train manufacturing company and sponsored by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley), states:
although British Rail has been due for some time to place a follow-on order for the next phase of Networkers, it has still failed to do so.
If the order is not received by the manufacturers, ABB Transportation Ltd in York, within the next few weeks, the factory will run out of work and close with the loss of its entire workforce.
This will mean no new trains for three years".


Will Ministers explain how the loss of 750 jobs, the closure of one of the country's last train manufacturing companies and no new trains for at least three years will benefit anyone, let alone provide a better service for the public?
That is the central point about this piece of privatisation: whenever the question is asked whether privatisation will lead to a better service, the answer is a resounding no, whether we are talking about fares rising by double the rate of inflation, the loss of a central timetable, the loss of inter-availability of tickets or a lower passenger service requirement. We no longer have to predict the effects of privatisation; we can already see them.

Mr. MacShane: The fundamental hostility of Ministers to the very existence of a rail service is reflected in the answers given to my parliamentary questions. Last year the Prime Minister used the rail service just once and the Secretary of State for the Environment, who should be using the rail service instead of elite, chauffeur-driven limousines, used it just five times. The President of the Board of Trade, who is supposed to be committed to British industry, used the rail service just nine times last year. The Government Front Bench have no interest in and no knowledge or practical experience of our rail service.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which will appear in the public record. My constituents have raised that subject with me on more than one occasion, and it deserves a wider audience.
Almost without exception, the effects of privatisation are bad for the rail passenger and bad for the country as a whole.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jackson: No, I will not give way.
The Government have no coherent strategy for improving the rail service. One has only to look at the new funding regime: the budget for British Rail and Railtrack will be cut by more than £400 million in the coming financial year, with the shortfall supposedly made up by privatisation receipts to be received sometime in the distant future. Consider what happened yesterday: the Rail Regulator made one announcement about access charges and the value of those receipts was cut by an estimated £2 billion. That sum was lost to the industry in one day because of one announcement.
Rail investment has become a privatisation lottery, with the Secretary of State for Transport the Noel Edmonds of the rail industry, constantly promising each rail manager that he will be the one to receive a Treasury windfall, when in reality the Minister is totally unable to influence events or to deliver on his promises or those of his predecessors. One can almost hear the right hon. Gentleman saying, "Don't worry, Sir Bob, it could be you".
In this environment of fragmentation rather than co-ordination, of competition rather than co-operation, and of investment on the never-never, it is no wonder that the quality of service offered to passengers is deteriorating daily—and that is why this privatisation will ultimately fail. Whatever Ministers pledge, whatever excuses they

give and no matter how often they point to the privatisations of the past, at the end of the day people will judge privatisation on the basis of the service that they receive. As the fiasco over through ticketing has so graphically illustrated, privatisation can mean only one thing: a poorer rail service and a country that is the poorer for it.

Mr. Barry Field: There we have it: independence for Scotland, independence for Wales and nationalisation for British Rail—a policy so popular in uniting Her Majesty's Opposition that only 12 Labour Members are present for the debate. The Opposition constantly call for more power for the regulators, but as soon as a regulator makes a pronouncement they invite the Secretary of State to intervene, clip the regulator's wings and subdue him.
It seems to have escaped hon. Members' attention that British Rail has already been privatised. For a number of years it operated the ferries to the Isle of Wight—which were run for the sole inconvenience of the passengers. As one crunched one's way through the paper cups and fag ends, if one found a seat that was not covered with seagull poo it was probably occupied by a burly British Rail seaman. If the train arrived on time, the ferry left early; if the train was late, the ferry left before it arrived. I should also mention the wonderful British Rail sandwich available on the Isle of Wight ferry, which was so curled from staleness that when one bit into one corner the other corner poked one in the eye.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has it escaped his attention that the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), spoke for more than half an hour without making one solitary suggestion as to how renationalising British Rail would improve services to passengers?

Mr. Field: I will come to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) later in my speech.

Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) refused to do so. Does my hon. Friend think, like the rest of us, that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was contributing to the wrong debate? As he was all at sea, perhaps he should have been speaking in the fishing debate which begins at 7 pm.

Mr. Field: I will disprove some of the theories of the hon. Member for Oldham, West later.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has visited the Isle of Wight. He travelled there on the ferry, which is almost the only way to reach the Isle of Wight—as the escapees from Parkhurst discovered the other day—via one of the car ferry routes. With regard to Mr. Swift's arrangements for through ticketing, as my right hon. Friend tried to point out— though he had difficulty getting it through to Labour Members— this is a consultation document. It is clear that the Opposition do not intend to produce any policies on the subject today. According to Lord Stanley, it is the duty of Oppositions to oppose everything and to propose nothing, but I was not aware that he had also said that Opposition Members must remain silent whenever they are asked about policy.
The debate presents an ideal opportunity for me to put forward my ideas about through ticketing on behalf of the people of the Isle of Wight, knowing that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be present on the Front Bench and as attentive as ever. Mr. Swift suggests in his document that Ryde pierhead should be the through-ticketing office for the Isle of Wight, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West alluded to it in his speech. That is an extraordinary suggestion as Ryde pierhead is the most difficult of the three through-ticketing offices on the Isle of Wight to access. The other two have car parking facilities and passengers do not have to catch a train, have a long and drafty walk, or buy a ticket for their motor car and drive the length of the pier to reach those offices. Ryde is also an extraordinary choice because it is the route on which services are most subject to cancellation due to bad weather.
Whenever I am asked to advise Ministers about travel arrangements to the Isle of Wight—it happens from time to time—I find that their staff always choose the Portsmouth to Ryde route. That seems to be the preferred route because it appears in the British Rail timetable, but it is not the most convenient route. Passengers can catch a train from Waterloo, arriving in Southampton just over an hour later, and then catch the Red Jet—which was built on the Isle of Wight— to Cowes, which takes 20 minutes. Red Funnel has had a franchise for through ticketing for British Rail for years and I am sure that it will be most concerned at the prospect of losing it. At Yarmouth, car parking facilities are conveniently located outside the ticket office.

Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Isle of Wight rail services were initially in the first tranche of franchises that the Government intended to put out to contract—indeed, they were due to be franchised by October last year—but the Government subsequently withdrew the Isle of Wight services from that tranche. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the Government's decision to withdraw Isle of Wight services from the franchising timetable, or does he wish that they had gone ahead in October last year?

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect: the Government did not withdraw them. I will return to that point later in my speech. If he can contain himself, he will find that the train will eventually arrive at its destination.
At Yarmouth passengers can purchase a ticket for the half-hour ferry journey. It is one of the few services where the train arrives at the pierhead near the ferry service in Lymington. It would be extraordinary if one had to travel virtually the length of the island—from Yarmouth to Ryde pierhead—to buy a through ticket, when at present one can buy one at Yarmouth, catch a train through to Brockenhurst, which is on the main system, and on to Wales or Scotland.
I have taken quite an interest in British Rail and another extraordinary matter puzzles me. British Rail invested heavily in a computer system, which I understand is called Sportis. I travel regularly from the House to the Isle of Wight by train. If one does not have a ticket, the ticket collector comes round and uses a portable piece of equipment to issue one. It will issue a ticket to almost anywhere in the United Kingdom, but for some reason British Rail left the Isle of Wight out of the computerisation. Every night, when the ticket inspector goes off duty he downloads the information on to the

British Rail mainframe and that is how the costs are analysed. Having acquired that mainframe computer and the ability to issue tickets on the train throughout the system, it seems extraordinary for anyone to suggest that through ticketing is to go. Indeed, perhaps we should shut down the ticket offices and issue tickets only on the trains.
Mention has been made of British Airways, which has a giant mainframe computer able to allocate seats and tickets all over the world.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: It may be of interest to my hon. Friend and to the House that one can book flights on Virgin Airways through British Airways by means of the computerised booking system developed by British Airways after it was privatised, so the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms 'Jackson) is totally wrong.

Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is ahead of me. I understand that the system is called Galileo and that the Ministry cif Defence has adopted the same system for its own air transport requirements because it is so successful in allocating space.
As for the hon. Member for Oldham, West misleading the House and being mistaken, one of the keynotes of his speech was that there was investor apathy for the privatisation of the railway. That was the spur which made me apply to speak in the debate.
As hon. Members will know, I have been a keen advocate of privatisation of the Isle of Wight railway. which is just 12 miles long and runs from the end of Ryde pierhead to Shanklin. When I met my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), the Minister responsible for the railways at the time, he said, "If you are going to do this, Barry, we must first assure ourselves that ministerial powers are available for the Isle of Wight railway to be sold." That took a few months. Then he said that there might be a problem with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because we had formed a consortium on the Isle of Wight. I use the royal "we" because although I am not part of it, I was an instigator of it.
The consortium involved one of the privatised bus companies which have been so successful. We read about Opposition Members being shareholders in such ventures and we know how tremendously successful that privatisation has been. There was concern about whether the MMC might rule out the consortium and not allow it to bid for the Isle of Wight railway system, but we got MMC clearance for the bid as the consortium does not want to be the majority shareholder and is quite happy to be the minority shareholder. Tomorrow morning I shall be meeting my hon. Friend the present junior Minister to raise the matter with him.
I also met my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), when he was in charge of railways, and we had several discussions. There was a feeling that, because privatisation was on the manifesto agenda, it would happen in due course anyway, so it would be premature to do it in isolation from the rest. That was fair enough. Then I met my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who is something of a steam and railway buff and he was very enthusiastic about the Isle of Wight railway being privatised.
So much for the suggestion by the hon. Member for Oldham, West that there is investor apathy: on the Isle of Wight there is investor anger that we have not got on with


it yet. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering came to the Isle of Wight and met the consortium, bringing with him one of the Rail Regulator's staff. We were all horrified to be told that it was all rather difficult and that perhaps the Isle of Wight would not take first place after all.
Another ingredient made me decide to speak today. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) also made a journey to the Isle of Wight and travelled on the railway system. I did what I always do after any hon. Member has visited the Isle of Wight, including the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I always thank them for coming to the Isle of Wight because we need all the tourist statistics we can get. When I asked the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East how he had got on and whether people on the Isle of Wight and had made him welcome, he said that they had and that he thought that privatisation might just work for the Isle of Wight railway line.
That is what really annoys me about the politics of the House and of the nation, and it gets right up the nose of the British people. The Opposition's policy has nothing to do with whether privatisation or nationalisation is right or wrong: it is about the Labour party's own agenda and delivering clause IV, and I can prove it. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East were the chairman of British Rail and we gave him half a billion pounds to improve the rail structure, I can say with certainty that he would not begin by expanding the railway system on the Isle of Wight. If my right hon. Friend were to make me the chairman of British Rail and gave me half a billion pounds to expand the system, I would not begin by expanding the railway system on the Isle of Wight either, and nor would my right hon. Friend. Certainly British Rail will never expand the system on the Isle of Wight.
We have ideology for its own sake and we cannot get the project through even though a consortium of local business people and hoteliers believes that we can expand the system on the island. The Liberal Democrat county council is also in favour of expanding the railway system on the Isle of Wight, although it pretends not to be and the Liberal Democrat spokesman will be speaking against it today. To give the Liberal Democrats their due, however, they have backed the project fully and are as disappointed as I am that it has been delayed.
It is a remarkable situation: I want to privatise British Rail on the Isle of Wight, and so do the Liberal Democrats, the people on the Isle of Wight, the consortium and the Ministers. Only Mr. Swift clearly does not want to privatise the railway line on the Isle of Wight. The other day he announced that the legal bill for doing so would be much too big and that it would have to be put on the back burner.

Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman kindly answered my question by saying that he is disappointed that privatisation on the Isle of Wight has been deferred. The original proposal involved what was termed a vertical privatisation whereby the private owner would own the infrastructure of the track and run the services. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that as a pattern for privatisation

in England, Scotland and Wales? If so, will he explain why? If not, why does he feel that that should be the case on the Isle of Wight, if he still believes it to be the case?

Mr. Field: I am glad of the opportunity to ask the hon. Gentleman why his party's manifesto does not include devolution for the Isle of Wight. As I often tell my constituents when they talk about problems in England, I am responsible only to the Isle of Wight, whose electorate sent me here, and I hope that I do a reasonable job in representing them.

. Mr.Mawhinney: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's commitment to his constituents. He is saying, in effect, that the private sector's enthusiasm and commitment to passengers will be so great that it will not need to be told that ways must be found to make it easy for people to buy tickets. The private sector understands that that is an essential part of its success. As regards the consultation document, I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will make their views clearly known to the Rail Regulator as this is the first time in British Rail's history that they have an opportunity to help shape our future railways.

Mr. Field: My right hon. Friend knows me well enough to assume that Mr. Swift will receive robust letters on that point from me and from more than a few of my constituents.
When an industry, business or other undertaking is in the hands of the state, the customer is seen as the enemy—a bit of an inconvenience. When such concerns are privatised, however, customers are seen as an opportunity and as friends. That is precisely what has happened with privatisations thus far. When British Rail ran ferries, we saw staff with glum faces and scruffily turned out, scruffy ships and all the problems to which I alluded earlier. Everything was done for the sole inconvenience of the customer. Today, the same employees who once worked for a nationalised industry are smart in appearance, proud, know who they work for and, above all, know that the customer is king.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering was 100 per cent. behind the Isle of Wight consortium to which I referred. The other day, he telephoned me with remarkably good news from the Ministry of Defence. He said that the Government were ordering 24 of the C 130J Hercules aircraft, which is good news for Westland Aerospace. When I asked my right hon. Friend whether they would be operational from the moment they were delivered, there was a long pause. Then he said, "Yes, they will—why do you ask?" I replied, "Because I would like their first task to be to bomb the office of the Rail Regulator so that we can get some action by him as soon as possible."

Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall not take a journey around the Isle of Wight because I want to return to the subject of the debate. That has nothing to do with the fact that, when I visited the island recently, I was not welcomed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), even though I took full advantage of its transport facilities.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but I shall pay the same attention as he did to the detail of statements. He made much fun of statements taken out of context, but I shall quote a statement precisely in


context. It was made to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) after hon. Members in the House and in Committee, from all parties, pressed for information about what guarantee the Government would give on the continuation of through ticketing. The right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), then Minister for Public Transport, said:
Through ticketing will be mandatory through the licensing system. Anyone who wants to run a passenger train service must ensure that through tickets are available for all journeys…That will be an obligation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 February 1993; c. 258.]
According to members of the Government Front Bench, that statement can now be interpreted as meaning that anyone who wants to run a passenger train service could provide only one outlet offering through ticketing—for example, the west of England could be covered by just Port Talbot station and, if the Secretary of State is right, the obligation would be met. That is patent nonsense. Even if that is the way that the Secretary of State intends to interpret the assurance given by the right hon. Member for Kettering, the House will not tolerate an attempt to undermine an assurance which, no doubt, was made with all honesty and integrity.
The Minister said also that there was a statutory obligation to take account of the Secretary of State's guidance. If we cannot be told what the guidance is, what is the statutory obligation? Promises and performance do not tally.
We are confronted with the extraordinary core list. The Minister said that it was only one of three options. It is curious that the core option is spelt out in so much detail but that the two others represent a diminution of the present position. The regulator's document makes a token examination of the two other options, and nothing that the Secretary of State said this afternoon has changed the rationale behind the document.
There is madness afoot, in the way that the regulator is approaching the planning of our rail network. Towns as large as Yeovil and Peterborough seem to be denied through ticketing. The right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) may care to explain why his town has been overlooked.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I do not want to allow the hon. Gentleman to go too far down a dead end. There was a transcription error in the document, whereby parts of Edinburgh were included twice and Peterborough was omitted. It was never the regulator's intention not to include Peterborough.

Mr. Tyler: The Minister took the words out of my mouth. There was an oversight. The document was issued without Peterborough being included, which is precisely my point. Such sloppy thinking has gone into—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it within your hearing that the words used by my hon. Friend the Minister were "a transcription

error"? Has that not been translated by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) into "an oversight"? Are not the meanings quite different?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): My hearing is exceptionally good and the hon. Gentleman is correct—but it is not for me to judge how any hon. Member interprets words used on either side of the Chamber.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. My point is that, if the transcription was a mistake, why was it overlooked? I hope that the right hon. Member for Peterborough will explain to his constituents why such an important railway station came to be overlooked.

Dr. Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: I shall not give way again; I must make progress.
I suspect that the Peterborough question—or the Yeovil question, if the House prefers—will come to haunt the Secretary of State, as the West Lothian question has come to haunt the Leader of the Opposition.
Other areas of the country will not have the benefit of through ticketing. Newbury, serving a large area of Berkshire, will be without it, as will Lichfield, Stowmarket and Liskeard. The whole of south-east Cornwall will be without even one core station. People in that area will have to cross the national boundary into England, to Plymouth, to obtain through tickets. That will not only cause inconvenience but mean additional costs. If people have to take one single ticket journey after another, it is quite possible that there will be an increase of about 20 per cent. in the cost of their journey.

Mr. Nigel Evans: rose—

Mr. Tyler: No, I want to make progress.
The rationale for this proposal—if that is not too flattering a word—is that the Government want all the train operators, of which there will be dozens after privatisation, to be able to issue their own tickets. Unfortunately, however, the Minister does not seem to have realised that the combinations that result from that are so complex, with so many different tickets, that only a few highly trained squads of crack ticket task forces will be able to understand what on earth is going on, hence the proposal for core stations.
Of course, ticket chaos is already rife. I am advised that there are now no fewer than 17 different return tickets for journeys between London and Birmingham alone, and the difficulty of getting information out of stations at either end is already considerable. The Minister says that this is all done to encourage diversity and choice, but diversity is a sham when no one can explain what is on offer, and choice means chaos when the consumer cannot weigh up the options.
As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned, there is a system that allows those who cannot get a ticket at an unmanned station to obtain one for most destinations from a portable computerised ticket machine. For instance, on the Newquay to Par branch line, people can obtain through tickets to almost anywhere—as long as the British Rail network is still in existence. What we have not heard from the Secretary of State today is whether it is intended that that system should be taken apart or made obsolete or whether some new system of portable through ticketing should be made available in its place. It is


because such a system fills in the gaps in the network at present that those who start their journeys from one of the unmanned stations can obtain a reasonable service en route.
We should surely be demanding an expansion and improvement of the ticketing system. After all, the technology is in place already; I understand that any station with a telephone line can provide this service. We should, therefore, not tolerate any retreat to a second-class service.
There is a sinister undercurrent to all this. The debacle is symptomatic of the Government's attitude towards privatisation in general; it is a portent of things getting worse. If through ticketing is for the chop, what are we to make of ministerial assurances about integrated timetables which we were given at the same time? My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has already referred to the difficulties of obtaining timetables. In many places, passengers will have to cross-reference between piles of pamphlets. What we need is a national passenger information service, providing seamless journeys, through ticketing and through timetable information.
What are we to make of the promises we were given at the same time about through train services? Horror stories are already surfacing about the difficulties that have become apparent even before the franchisees come on the scene. Operators will become so desperate to meet their punctuality targets that they are likely to decide that connections are of less importance. The logical conclusion is that, if operators ran no trains at all, they would be able to guarantee 100 per cent. punctuality.
It takes no genius to see that the upshot of all this is that even more people will desert the railways for their long-distance journeys. At present, a number of important holiday resorts in Devon and Cornwall benefit from Saga Holidays' use of through trains, with through ticketing and through services—not to mention the through timetables which are of critical importance to Saga's elderly holidaymakers, who routinely travel by train from the north of England to most of the major resorts in the south-west. In future, Saga says, they will go by coach. That will lessen the chances of maintaining a viable rail service and will put more pressure on the roads.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this muddle is that the Government want a minimalist, slimmed-down railway which will not pose a challenge to the great car economy which they used to champion. No doubt, the Minister will say that he is building a railway fit for the 21st century, or some such platitude. He came close to using one again this afternoon. More probably, he is building a railway fit for the scrap heap.
The motion is drawn in strictly limited terms, but the Government amendment opens up the whole privatisation can of worms. No doubt that is why a number of Conservative Members seemed to be shaking in their shoes. Perhaps they have been listening to their constituents on the subject of the unpopularity of this "privatisation too far" or, as The Daily Telegraph calls it, this "poll tax on wheels". I have good news for them. For the reasons that I set out in Monday's debate, I believe that the privatisation of Railtrack before polling day now

looks increasingly unlikely, so Tory Members may be spared the experience of going to the electorate with Railtrack already in the private sector.
I believe, too, that the alleged attractions of the franchises are proving far from convincing, which is why so few bids are in. For our part, we have said—I said it on Monday—that we shall use our influence to retain or reclaim a golden share in Railtrack, to ensure that the network remains a public service. The Secretary of State quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend said. We have repeatedly made it clear that we have no objections to introducing an element of competition—to the Isle of Wight or to any area where that would be appropriate but within a national railway network and only if there is a framework of guaranteed public service obligations, together with a national long-term transport plan.
Next week, we shall be able to take stock again, because we expect then to have the announcement by the Office of the Passenger Rail Franchising Director on minimum service specifications. If that announcement is in line with the sort of thinking exhibited by the Secretary of State this afternoon, and by last week's report from the regulator, we shall have further confirmation of the fact that standards are to be drastically lowered. Even the limited requirement that last year's timetable should form the base point for improved services in future will be torn up.
Perhaps all this does not bother Ministers. We know that the Prime Minister does not use trains—I understand that he has been on one only once since becoming Prime Minister—but the travelling public cannot afford to be so optimistic. This plan for rail privatisation is a one-way ticket to disaster. It is time someone pulled the emergency cord and stopped the train.

Mr. Matthew Banks: In view of the limited time available, I propose to keep my remarks short so as to be fair to other hon. Members who wish to speak.
Regrettably, far too much time was wasted earlier in the debate. When I saw the Opposition motion on today's Order Paper, it struck me that this was a debate of National Union of Students standard—it was all about playschool politics. It gives me no pleasure to say that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) came into the Chamber today with few notes and very little of substance to say.
One of the benefits of a national railway network is through ticketing. Parliament has expressly required the regulator to promote through ticketing as a network benefit, now and in future. That is why the Opposition motion is so silly. I feel that the hon. Member for Oldham, West could have done a great deal better. He did not even answer any of the points put to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We heard only the usual mishmash, "One day we will renationalise; the next day we won't." I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman, because all too often in recent days I have heard remarks on the subject of transport made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who is no longer an Opposition transport spokesman but who appears to give advice to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), also no longer an Opposition


transport spokesman, appears to have taken the lead in these matters, and Alastair Campbell seems to be telling Opposition Members what they should be saying.
The Transport Select Committee quite rightly took a critical but constructive look at the Government's proposals, and the Government listened and acted on virtually all its suggestions. I was struck by how many British Rail employees privately told members of the Committee that they, acting as individuals or collectively, could provide a better service for the travelling public.
In this debate, as in similar debates over the past couple of years, we have heard far too little from Opposition Members about the necessity of improvements for the travelling public. That is what the Government's proposals are about. It is all very well for the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) to say that he and his party agree with increased competition, when he wants British Rail to remain lock, stock and barrel in the public sector. There must be change if some of the improvements that the Government want are to come to fruition.

Mr. Tyler: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find that what he suggests is not what I said. The commitment that I gave this evening and on Monday was specific. I hope that he will do me the honour of at least reading what I had to say in Hansard.

Mr. Banks: If I am wrong, I shall, of course, apologise. I know from personal experience, however, that the hon. Gentleman is not different from his Liberal Democrat colleagues: he says one thing in this place, one thing in his constituency, one thing at one end of his constituency and another thing at the other end of it.
Those of us who want to improve the quality of service to the travelling public back the Government's rail privatisation proposals. We should give those individuals who have said privately that they could do better individually or collectively the chance to do so through the franchising mechanism that the Government are putting in place to give a better deal to the travelling public. We must make rail travel more attractive and, above all, attract more people on to the railways and off the roads.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West talked about the number of through stations where we can buy a through ticket. Even though only half the stations in the United Kingdom are staffed, there are wide discrepancies between the sort of tickets that we can buy from different British Rail operators and from different stations. It is necessary to book in advance for many tickets to obtain them at a competitive price. It is necessary also to book a seat. Booking is necessary for a variety of other reasons, all of which are positive and are designed to improve the service that is available to the travelling public. I am not concerned at the fact that many tickets and fares are available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) talked about the airlines. A person who wants to use one route from one destination to another will find that a wide range of fares is available. That choice is important. All too often, we hear, especially from trade union sponsored Labour Members—particularly those sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—about what is important to the union interest. Insufficient consideration is given to the travelling public.
Ticketing in the current British Rail set up has not been the result of statutory regulation or legal obligation; instead, it has been brought about by the commercial wisdom and know-how of those within British Rail. That is exactly what will happen within the new privatised franchises. Those who run the franchises will have a vested interest in encouraging as many people as possible to use their services.
The introduction of new ideas and privatisation will increase choice. That has happened in and between the airlines and it will happen within the railways. British Airways is not, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in quoting an Opposition spokesman, the pantomime horse of capitalism; instead, it has been a rip-roaring success. When the travelling public recognise the benefits of franchising in years to come, they will not see renationalisation as something on the menu that they might wish to choose. They will not take that view when they have experienced the substantial improvements that franchising will bring about.
As I have said, British Rail has no current statutory minimum service for ticketing. That is the point behind the regulator's consultation document. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that there are just one or two paragraphs in the report on the existing system and a great deal on core and secondary services. It is not necessary to write many paragraphs on the present system, because everybody knows about it. We want maximum opportunities for passengers to buy through tickets to continue. The best solution to emerge from the debate would be new standards in the provision of service, with independent decision making by operators and standards prescribed and enforced by the regulator.
The current arrangements must form the starting point. For a period, the regulator should approve all changes within certain criteria. After a given time, operators such as British Rail should be able to exercise more and more of their own commercial judgment when introducing new ideas and innovation to improve the service that they provide. In short, changes must be gradual and incremental. I have no doubt that that is exactly what will happen.
We have not heard Opposition Members, and especially those on the Opposition Front Bench, set out their ideas on how they would improve the service. I have referred before to the fuddle and muddle of Opposition statements. Indeed, a press officer for the Leader of the Opposition has contradicted Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It is sad to look across the Chamber and recognise that if ever there were a Labour Government, probably not one of the present Opposition Front-Bench team—well, possibly one for the sake of continuity—would end up as a Minister in the Department of Transport.
At one stage, the Leader of the Opposition is back-pedalling on renationalisation; the next minute, he is saying, "Yes, we need to follow that route." Where is he? I gather that he is travelling the country trying to drum up support for getting rid of clause IV. Why is there fuddle and muddle on the Opposition Front Bench? The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and other union influence have ensured that the Leader of the Labour party knows that he will not be able to ditch clause IV if he does not stick to his guns on renationalising British Rail.
What a way to carry on. What a contradiction. That is not the way forward. The public will not be fooled now or at the ballot box come the next general election by such nonsensical thinking by Opposition Members.
If the Labour party were to win the next general election, the union barons who are their pay masters would come out of the woodwork, as they are beginning to do now. I Live no doubt that the interests of the unions would be put before the interests of the travelling public. It is the interests of the travelling public that have made me so supportive of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. The Government amendment contains the most sensible balance to be found in the Order Paper and I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government.

Dr. John Marek: We heard much invective from the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), but little sound advice of which the House could take notice. I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the next Labour Government—yes, the Labour party will win the next general election and there will be a, Labour Government—will take the railways back under public control and ownership. The quicker that that is done, the better. We shall do so for good reasons, one of them being that we want an integrated transport system.
In the area that I represent, rail connections with Chester have already been broken. Regional Railways prefers travellers from Wrexham who are making a journey to the capital or to the midlands to use sprinters, using Regional Railways stock. It discourages them from going to Chester—to go up the Trent valley using InterCity stock. The Government have no answer to that. There are no longer any decent connections at Chester for travellers from Wrexham to other places in the United Kingdom. That is something that privatisation cannot solve. I predict that the disintegration of the service will become greater.
Liberals a re sometimes their own worst enemies. I thought that I would be helpful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the contents of the consultation paper. I was on the Minister's side when it came to interventions. The hon. Gentleman did not even allow me to intervene in his speech. I wanted to tell him that Wrexham does not appear in the paper.
Why is Wrexham not in the document? It is a borough of 115,000 people. One criterion that appears in the consultation paper is to be found on page 29, where it is stated that all towns and cities with a population of more than 50,000 will have at least one core station. There are four stations within the borough of Wrexham. Two are in the centre, where there is a population of well over 50,000. As I said, Wrexham does not appear in the consultation document.
There are plenty of things wrong with the consultation paper, but let me take it a little further. One little secret has been kept from the public and from the House in the debate so far. It is simplified by reading page 1, the regulator's foreword. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, 21 pages deal with cutting the number of stations in the British Isles where one can buy through tickets. That cannot possibly be an

improvement in services. I know that Conservative Members have been standing on their heads trying to pretend that such consultation papers are improvements in services, but they are not. The regulator says, in the first line:
One of my duties under the Railways Act is to promote the use of the railway network.
The regulator talks about customers, about service, about better railways. That is one of his duties. Does he tell us another of his duties? It is in section 4 of the Railways Act—to promote economy in the British railway network. That has not been mentioned. The Secretary of State did not mention economy. Perish the thought that that word should cross his lips. What it is about is an economic sanction being applied, and, of course, the British railway traveller will pay for the Government's decision to privatise the railways, if it ever comes about.
I accept that the Minister said that through ticketing will be available, give or take a few stations, in more or less the same stations as we have at present. But the problem is a little deeper. I hope that the Minister is listening, because I would appreciate a reply if one can be given, although in some instances the absence of a reply is rather telling. Will through ticketing be available at the best prices for the day of travel? I can see grave difficulties and that, I suspect, is why we are debating the matter.
This is not infantile, as Conservative Members have sought to make out. I know all about Conservative briefings and I am willing to bet that the words "infantile" or "petty" have appeared in the briefing that is handed out in the Whips Office to all the hon. Members who are dragged in to make their speeches. By and large they never use the railways, or very rarely. They are dragged into the Chamber on pain of not getting any further promotion, or whatever.
If through ticketing is to remain—this is a serious question—will any person going to a station to get a through ticket be able to get one at the best possible price on the day of travel? It would be easier, perhaps, to promise that if one was buying the ticket two or three weeks in advance, but what if one wanted to travel that day or the next? It is possible that one might pay standard class fares when there may be offers from another station, and if one booked a ticket to that station and rebooked, one might pay a cheaper price. That is something that the Government will have to face up to if this mad scheme ever comes about. I do not think that it will, because there is another problem.
There are literally tens of thousands of ways in which to book tickets, and if there are to be different operating companies, they will have different offers at different times and on different days. Some companies might have cheaper tickets after 4 o'clock, some after 7 o'clock. I do not believe that British Rail or the Rail Regulator, at this stage, has the ability through the computer system to get everything right.
British Rail's system is called Tribute. As far as I understand it, British Rail says that everything is going smoothly at the moment, but I do not believe that it has the ability to cope at this stage. The comparison with airlines is wrong, because airline ticketing is much easier. It is true that there are different fares, but the destinations by and large are the same or grouped for the same fare.


The rules are much easier. The rules for rail through ticketing will be very complicated, and I suspect that that is why the Government are in trouble.

Mr. Matthew Banks: The hon. Gentleman referred to airlines. Why should the system that may operate when franchising takes place, with a variety of different fares available at different times, from different locations and ticketed in a variety of ways, be any less a means of providing choice and value for money to the travelling public using the railways than the airline industry?

Dr. Marek: My contention is that the system on the railway is much more complicated and is liable to vary in a much more complicated way and with much greater frequency. I do not believe that the Government can do it.
I should be grateful if the Minister gave the assurance when he replies that through ticketing will continue at the best available price. Let us remember that many people go to ticket offices. I know that a business traveller with a credit card can go to a travel agent or whatever and get his ticket whenever he likes two or three days in advance, but most of my constituents turn up at the railway station. They have either a £10 or a £20 note. They do not quite know where or when they are going. They do not know the fare structure, but they want to buy a ticket there and then and be off. It would be a disgrace if passengers were inconvenienced by withdrawal of through-ticketing facilities.
Let me draw to the attention of the House a previous debate that we had. As a member of the Committee that considered the Railways Bill, I should perhaps repeat that I am sponsored by the RMT, although I have said it once before. I do not want anybody to be under any misapprehension. On 16 February 1993, I tabled an amendment to what was then clause 4 of the Bill, making it the priority of the Rail Regulator to promote the railway network and to give it precedence over economies and efficiencies in the railway network. That was not acceptable to the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman). He said:
I recommend the Committee to reject the amendment. All the duties are important. I concede that the first two are extremely important."—
that is, promoting the railway system. He said that the third duty was to provide for economies on the railway system, and continued:
I recommend the hon. Member for Wrexham not to attempt to put the regulator in a straitjacket. We have set out his duties clearly in the Bill. They are comprehensive and sensible. Let us not attempt to prioritise them. We must let the regulator make his own decision."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 February 1993; c. 136.]
If one wanted to make a right old mess of anything, the Government did just that. They did it in Committee and are now paying the penalty. One of the reasons why they do not like this debate is that the average passenger, the average citizen, who will vote in a general election in the next two years, understands very well what the debate is about. It is not about airy-fairy economics, monetary supply, or relations with Cambodia or anywhere else. It is about being able to travel on a train when one wants to, to understand the system and not have to pay too much for it and to have the convenience of getting a ticket when one wants it. The public understand that. Unfortunately, Conservative Members do not.

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, which has already had some distinguished contributions by Conservative Members. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on managing the keep within the time limit that he set himself. He dealt with matters in some detail and gave the House an idea of some of the pressures that Opposition Front-Bench Members will have to face from their Back Benchers in favour of nationalisation. That came out quite clearly in his speech.
I wish to raise an important matter that is of great interest to my constituents. Although I welcome the opportunity to raise it, my first reaction when I saw the Opposition motion was one of some surprise. Although railway through ticketing is an important subject, it is surprising that the Opposition chose it for debate when there are so many other important issues before the House at the moment, and when the Opposition have chosen this time to launch important debates on matters such as devolution, which, incidentally, may enter into this debate.
If the Opposition were to have their way and set in train a course of events that broke up the United Kingdom, we might be unable to procure through tickets to Scotland. We would arrive at the Scottish border, pay a border tax to go into Scotland and then be unable to purchase a ticket for the return journey because the trains would be full of Scots people trying to escape from the high taxation being imposed on them by an Edinburgh assembly.
That is not the only reason why this seems a strange debate. We are debating a consultation document. It is strange for the Opposition to use their time to debate a document that is about the best way of achieving certain ends on which the Government have given firm commitments and which, as my right hon. Friend has said, the Government have a statutory duty to procure.
The fact that we are considering a consultation document places certain limits on the debate. It makes it impossible to do as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) did and call upon the Minister to give a cast-iron guarantee that the operation will be carried out in a particularly detailed way. It is impossible for the Minister to give such a guarantee when the consultation document is about the best way forward. I would not for a moment accuse the hon. Gentleman of deliberately asking the Minister for a guarantee on something on which it is impossible for the Minister to give a guarantee. It is probably an oversight on his part, if I may put it that way.

Mr. Tyler: It was precisely because Ministers gave those assurances, which Conservative and Opposition' Members took to be guarantees, that this debate is taking place.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the distinction that I made between guarantees given by the Minister and matters of detail concerning the way in which those guarantees will be fulfilled. That is what the hon. Gentleman was referring to and that is what the consultation document is all about.
I rest upon the criterion by which the proposal will be judged, which is contained in the consultation document. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that there was nothing in the consultation document about


having a better railway service at the end of the day. But if he had got as far as page 2, he would have found in paragraph 4 that the regulator had set himself the following criterion:
I want to be satisfied that there will be a better rail network and better use of the network by reason of the decisions I take.
One can dispose of the debate on through ticketing by urging my right hon. Friend the Minister to judge the consultation by that criterion. To be fair, my right hon. Friend gave every sign that that was just the criterion that he would apply.
That brings me to an important point that has been missed by some Opposition Members, which is the nature of privatisation itself. Like other Conservative Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who spoke so forcefully on the subject, I look forward to privatisation delivering benefits to railway users across a wide range of railway services. I see no reason to doubt that they will bring the same entrepreneurial spirit, the same innovation and the same skills as have been brought to so many other privatisations.
During the debate, we have heard all the scare stories that we have heard about privatisations in the past. But the important point, which Opposition Members must regard in a responsible way, is that it is vital for passengers that this privatisation is a success. The process is in train and its success is important if a good service is to be provided. We shall be letting down our constituents if, in our actions or words, we do anything to undermine the success of the venture.
We have heard much today about what has been said during the past week by Opposition Members on the subject. I do not want to go over the glaring differences that have already been amply exposed, but it is impossible to leave things as they stand. There is a glaring difference between Opposition Members as to whether they want the privatisation to succeed.
Yesterday we heard the news that the regulator was reducing by 8 per cent. the rents to be paid by privatised train companies. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen could not make up their minds whether that was a good thing. In The Daily Telegraph today, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is quoted as saying that the rent cut would make Railtrack less attractive to the private sector. He was therefore criticising the Government for making the privatisation unattractive to potential operators.
At the same time, the hon. Member for Oldham, West is quoted in the same edition of The Daily Telegraph, somewhat ironically juxtaposed on the same page, as saying that pulling the privatised companies back into the public sector remained an option. The report went on to say:
In a sparsely veiled warning, he said: 'We are going to draw the attention of investors to the risk involved in that they will be dependent on continuing levels of high public subsidy.'
Spelling out such a warning is damaging to the process of privatisation and getting good management on to the railway. It is also damaging to the interests of railway users.
I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will deal with the question of ownership when he replies. The present state of play came from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) yesterday. He is quoted in The Guardian yesterday as saying:
We will allow those contracts"—
which are to be allocated under the privatisation programme—
to continue and when they are up we want a publicly owned and publicly accountable railway.
One must take into account the fact that those contracts will last for seven years. How does that leave railway users and franchise operators during that seven years? It is more serious than the Labour party simply having a seven-year itch for a bit of nationalisation. It affects the railway's future during those seven years. How can franchise operators operate a franchise for seven years knowing that at the end of that time their franchises will come to an end and the system will be taken into public ownership? That is a recipe for chaos and confusion in our railway system for the next seven years.
No one would award a franchise under such circumstances. No one would take up a franchise with any confidence if there was a threat of renationalisation after seven years. The hon. Member for Fife, Central shakes his head. I should be grateful if he clarified what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said and said whether that is Labour party policy. I shall willingly give way to him if he wishes to do so. He remains in his seat. I hope that he will specifically say whether the Labour party has a definite commitment to renationalise the railways after seven years. Such a policy would be a recipe for chaos and confusion over seven years for railway users—for my constituents who depend on the railway service.
During the next seven years and beyond, I look forward to a railway service under private ownership having all the benefits of other privatised industries. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to proceed with that course.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is worried about a seven-year backing for franchisers, but it is a pity that he has not been worried about backing for a railway system which has meant that the United Kingdom has the lowest level of investment in rail infrastructure in Europe. It would be more appropriate if he turned his attention to that.
This is a highly specific debate, but it affects all rail users and so is of great concern to the general public. Although the Government are trying to dismiss it as being trivial, it is anything but trivial to people who have to use rail transport and to people who wish to see a properly funded and operating rail transport system.
The Government gave clear promises regarding through ticketing, but it is not clear whether they can or will deliver those promises. The public have had a comprehensive, country-wide integrated rail system, but they now see that that system is in danger of fragmentation as it goes through a Government experiment. No one can judge the outcome of that, but many of us are extremely worried by what we have seen in the early stages of the Government's plans. The rail


system needs investment and modernisation, but the Government are delivering simply a strong dose of ideology.
The debate is about the practical consequences of the Government's policy and philosophy. Their privatisation scheme is creating a fragmentation of rail service provision and control whose consequences are just beginning to become apparent. From a unified, easily identifiable network is emerging a shattered, stuttering, incomplete system. The Government should not be surprised by the reaction to their plans, which could mean that only one railway station in eight will sell a complete range of tickets. Currently, 1,580 stations sell through tickets.
The public watchdog, the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee, has observed:
Making people travel 50 miles on a 2 hour round trip to buy a ticket and then clutch a pack of cards to go by train is quite bizarre.
The committee is entirely correct.
It is feared that only one in eight of Britain's 2,500 railway stations will sell a range of tickets enabling passengers to travel anywhere in the area controlled by what may soon be 25 franchisees in the new divided rail system. Of the three options given by the regulator, only that one is described in detail; no such space is accorded to the alternative—a considerable increase in the number of stations selling tickets.
Indeed, privatisation seems designed to make rail travel more difficult and expensive. The administrative costs of preparation, including legal and City fees, have been estimated at over £700 million. Surely it would he far better to invest such a large sum in services than to waste it by implementing an experiment intended to fulfil the Government's narrow-minded ideology, against the wishes of the general public.
Railtrack will be required to earn a much higher return on capital, and the higher fees to franchise holders will be passed on in higher passenger costs. I have heard nothing from the Government to dispel that worry. An estimated 90 per cent. of their income will have been pre-empted by access charges to Railtrack and fees to the rolling stock leasing companies. There is a real danger that services will have to be cut drastically so that they can generate the profits that shareholders have now come to expect. That must lead to fewer passengers and higher fares. The Government should heed that warning, because it came from the House's own Transport Select Committee, but so far I have seen no sign that they are listening to the views of a Committee that contained many of their own Back Benchers.
The debate is, in itself, a warning of forthcoming unattractions: unmanned stations, fewer ticket outlets and fewer services at stations. That adds up to a fall in service standards that the Government are describing as an improvement, which strikes me as monumental cheek. Gaps are opening up between the Secretary of State for Transport and the regulator—as we have heard today—between the public and their rail service provision, between different sections of the rail industry and between different types of provision; all that is a consequence of Government policy.
Let me ask a question that the Secretary of State ducked earlier. How will he use his powers of guidance vis-a-vis the rail regulator? Will guidance on through ticketing become an instruction? That question is at the heart of the

debate. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that, under his own legislation, the Secretary of State cannot interfere with the regulator's independence. What exactly is the relationship between the publicly elected Secretary of State and the unelected, unaccountable regulator? Who will make the final decision?
The relationship between the Government and the regulator is at the heart of the debate. Under the Railways Act 1993, the regulator takes "direction" from the Secretary of State until the end of next year; but the regulator will determine the size of the network because he is the final decision maker on line closures—and for that he is paid £125,000 a year and is given 50 members of staff. No wonder the public are fed up, and worried about yet another growth in. quangos—bodies that are unelected and unaccountable, and are making decisions that affect all our daily lives.
The Government cannot escape the fact that they made clear promises on through ticketing. We are entitled to ask why they did not include guarantees on present levels of through ticketing as part of any franchising deal. The Secretary of State said today, clearly and unequivocally, that through ticketing would be maintained; but how does he know, and who will decide? Ministerial bluster will not hide the threadbare nature of past promises and the present failure to deliver.
The Secretary of State was very good at asking questions of the Opposition Front Bench, but managed to avoid answering questions about through ticketing. Will he make the final decision? Will he, the elected Minister, decide whether through ticketing is to be maintained at present levels, or will that be decided by an unelected, unaccountable regulator? I regret to say that, in this age of quangos, the answer lies in the right hon. Gentleman's avoidance of that key question: it speaks volumes.
Power is being taken from the people, against whose wishes these privatisation measures are being imposed. Apparently, a direct Government promise is now in the hands of an unelected regulator acting through an unelected, unaccountable quango. That is what the Government have brought us to, and they will take the full blame at the next general election.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Opposition Members have said that Conservative Members are unhappy that the debate is taking place, but that is nothing to do with what they have said. The whole debate is facile: all the arguments have been rehearsed in the Chamber before, during debates on the original question of privatising the railways.
I am as confused now as I was before about the Opposition's policy on the railways, and I do not think that they know exactly what it is either. I will not take any lectures from Opposition Members who have now started to bleat about their concern for people who use the railways, given that theirs was the party that supported a signalmen's strike that brought misery and discomfort to many millions of passengers throughout a dreadful period; I do not think that they can give us any lectures about the care and service that we want customers of the railways to receive in future.
It is the same old story of scaremongering. Opposition Members are trying to scare passengers into thinking that they will be given a worse service after privatisation. We


heard the same arguments in regard to all the earlier privatisations. In an excellent article, today's Daily Express talks of "Power to the people", referring to several of the privatisations that Opposition Members opposed. It mentions British Airways, for instance. I do not know whether any Opposition Members will stand up and say, "If we win the next general election, we will nationalise British Airways again", but I do not think that very likely. As a nationalised company, British Airways was losing taxpayers' money hand over fist, but profits for the last six months are expected to be around £450 million. It is the world's favourite airline. We want to ensure that ours is the world's favourite railway system—and we can do it, with the same efficiency savings that have been brought to bear on British Airways.
British Telecommunications is another example. Opposition Members put out their scaremongering stories about what would happen, saying that there would be fewer telephone boxes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about railway privatisation and through ticketing; we do not want to hear a whole lot of questions about other privatisations.

Mr. Evans: I will move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to draw a parallel, and to show the difference between what Opposition Members are saying now and the reality following privatisation, but I shall return to the subject of railways and through ticketing.
I wonder whether any Opposition Members have bothered to read the regulator's report. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said that he was not sure whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) had got as far as page 2; I have grave concerns about whether he even reached page 1. Paragraph 3 states:
Privatisation and restructuring of the railways are intended to improve services to customers and stimulate innovation. In looking at any new proposals to replace British Rail's current arrangements I shall want to be satisfied that they are likely to achieve these objectives.
The first sentence of a press notice issued by the regulator on Wednesday 11 January, which I am sure Opposition Members have seen, states:
The rail regulator, John Swift…today invited views on the future arrangements for the retailing of through and other tickets at stations in the restructured railway industry …
There are a number of options canvassed in this consultation paper. They range from enforcing the status quo to a radical change in concept, the core station and the core services.
It should be fairly clear to everyone that this is a consultation paper and that Opposition Members and the public have until 28 February to make their views known. That is why this debate is facile. No firm decisions have been taken and it is reprehensible for Opposition Members to try to scare passengers into thinking that they will get an inferior service after privatisation.
The public have a choice: they can use the railways or they can use their cars, or coaches, or various other forms of transport. Since 1953, there has been a decline in the number of people using the railways. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the numbers have gone down from 17 per cent. in 1953 to 5 per cent. today. The

tale of freight is even more tragic. A poll in today's Evening Standard shows that more people would like to use the railways if the service were up to it.
We need to improve the whole range of services for passengers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said, a service should be advertised as much as possible so that as many people as possible have access to it. Through ticketing will be preserved, but we must also look at innovative ways by which people will have access to train tickets.
Clitheroe railway station is in my constituency and a service from there to Blackburn opened last year. Ticket facilities, including through ticketing, are provided not by British Rail but by a Clitheroe travel agent. I congratulate that Clitheroe travel agency on providing that imaginative service.
I hope that privatisation will improve stations because in the main they are miserable places. People sometimes have to wait 20, 30 or 40 minutes when changing trains, and much more could be done through investing in stations the sort of sums that BAA has invested in our airports. That should be done to provide comfort for passengers. I congratulate Keith Taylor and Ribble Valley council on holding an art exhibition in Clitheroe station to provide some pleasure for people who are waiting for trains. I also congratulate the regulator on reducing access charges for train operators who wish to use the lines. I hope that that will result in lower prices for consumers because we want to attract to the railways as many people as we can.
I had a letter last year from one of my constituents who had bought a ticket for his daughter at a cost of £8. When she could not use it her father sought a refund and was charged an administration fee of £5. That is outrageous, and I hope that that system will change. I have already brought the matter up with British Rail, which is not at all interested in the plight of one of its customers. It must do something about that.
I hope that after the changes more freight will be attracted to the railways because that would be good news. Castle Cement in my constituency has been forced off the railways by British Rail because of some of the high charges that have been introduced. I would be interested in hearing what Opposition Members propose to improve the service to rail customers and passengers—they have certainly not told us so far. We are not certain whether a future Labour Government would totally renationalise the railways, bringing the service back down to the level that people have experienced over the years.
We want to improve the quality of service for the public, and that can be done only through more private money being invested to improve lines such as the north-west coast main line, which runs through my constituency. That needs to be improved, and the only way to do it is by allowing access to private money. There has already been a fantastic investment of £15 billion in the railways since 1979, but it is not enough. As I say, more private money must be invested.
Such investment will attract more people to return to the railways, but that will certainly not happen if we follow what the Opposition have suggested. They do not have the slightest idea of policy on the railways. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has the policy somewhere. Perhaps it is in the boot of his car and he cannot work out where he has put it. If he ever does and he is able to read that policy


document, perhaps he will share Labour's rail policy with us. We are waiting to hear what it is but we do not want to wait for two years until the next general election to discover Labour's policy on rail nationalisation. Opposition Members now have an opportunity to tell us. The country is listening. Perhaps they will share their policy with us.

Mr. Henry McLeish: One has to retain a sense of humour when listening to Conservative Members. Their contributions ranged from a pathetic obsession with privatisation to sheer drivel. I shall not dignify them by responding to some of their points because this is a serious debate about through ticketing. They may not like it, but you will find out fairly soon in your constituencies as the station network is decimated and representations—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the convention on the word "you".

Mr. McLeish: Conservative Members say that this debate is a waste of time and that they want to talk about our policies. We have heard about consultation. Does any hon. Member believe that the consultation smokescreen is anything other than a device to get the Secretary of State for Transport off the hook on which he is impaled?

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: I will not give way.
My hon. Friends repeatedly asked the Secretary of State for his view on the fiasco that the regulator has unleashed on passengers. He dug himself into a hole and he kept digging. He was rescued only when some of his hon. Friends started to speak about further aspects of privatisation. The key question for Conservative Members is whether there will be 300 or 500 stations.

Mr. Arnold: I will answer that.

Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way just now: I shall give way in a minute.
Is it to be 1,000 stations or, like us, do they want to make sure that there is no diminution of the existing network for through ticketing, which provides an excellent service to the travelling public?

Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will be 300, 500 or 1,000 stations, but that is the wrong question. Why should people have to go many miles to a station to buy tickets? Why cannot they buy them at thousands of outlets in the same way as they can buy lottery tickets? That is the question that the hon. Gentleman should ask. They cannot buy tickets in that way because the nationalised British Rail insists that travel agents who sell rail tickets must use complicated,

cumbersome and cost-driven paper systems. That is why the overwhelming majority of travel agents do not sell rail tickets.

Mr. McLeish: That was merely an abuse of an intervention.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House and the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be short.

Mr. McLeish: Let us have a unique and non-controversial idea injected into the debate. Possibly when one arrives at a station one might be able to buy a ticket. That seems to be one of the hallmarks of railway development this century. There is an obsession with the market. People are told to go to a Tesco or Safeway store for tickets. The Government want to take an axe and decimate the station network. Conservative Members may not like the facts, but one of them is that the regulator wants 294 core stations and that will mean first-class and second-class stations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No, I shall not give way again.
Conservative Members know that even if people get access to trains there will be a problem. Through ticketing will become a nightmare and fares will rise because of the marketing mechanism that the Government envisage. I thought that we had just one national lottery, but the Government want to turn British Rail into a second lottery. I do not believe that any passenger or member of the public could support the notion that to cut the number of stations from 1,580 to 294 could be called progress.
Another phrase for what is happening is sheer lunacy. Conservative Members are dismayed by the fact that the public simply do not want privatisation. The issue of through ticketing is their first opportunity to become involved in that complicated process.
Conservative Members have lectured us on our policies, so it is with rich irony that I say that the Government want to smash British Rail into 100 private political pieces, sell them to the private sector and then claim that there will be a national rail network, that through ticketing will be an instant success and that passengers will enjoy more choice, greater accessibility, lower fares and a better service. It is an insult to the House to suggest that any of that could be taken seriously.

Mr. Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. McLeish: No.
In the brief time available to me, I want to deal with two issues that the Government do not want to discuss. The first is why, between 7 and 10 January, the Secretary of State changed his mind so quickly on the question of through ticketing. When he was first approached about the leaked regulator's report, he was quick to say that the proposals were unacceptable. He acted on instinct or, possibly, out of ignorance. Two days later he acted on instructions from his Department, the basis of which was a little-known report prepared on 7 January 1993—the right hon. Gentleman may not even have seen it—that shows conclusively that the original decision to decimate the rail structure was not taken by the regulator, but was hatched in the report. The report states clearly that it


envisages the number of stations offering through ticketing to be about 400 or 500. The regulator might have gone further than that.
The whole thing suggests a conspiracy. I shall use just one quote to show how the public have been conned. The report states:
There are potential weaknesses in presenting the difficulties in option 3"—
that is, the free-for-all that the regulator now has. It continues:
It offers no definitive guarantees and might lead to criticism that through ticketing in some areas could simply wither on the vine.
Does not that underline our case? Stations throughout the country will be removed from the through-ticketing system. Whether we call that withering on the vine or the Tory axe makes little difference.
I warn the Government that the report will be widely circulated to ensure that the regulator does not become the scapegoat for the Government's obsessive nature. Ministers may shake their heads, but they have not read the report. I can provide a copy for any Minister who wishes to read it. It is a "Policy-in-confidence" document sent to a "Mr. McCarthy", a "Mr. Freeman" and the Secretary of State. It is a long report.
The key issue is that the report shows that the public have been misled. For two years, behind closed doors, there has been a private agenda, while the public agenda has been, "Not me, guy, it's the regulator." We must speak up for the regulator tonight and say that he is being abused. The Government should come clean and say that it is not the regulator but they who initiated the proposal.
The Secretary of State is in a real tizzy about another issue. He is caught between a rock and a hard place. He wants to be able to say that, because the regulator is independent, he cannot interfere with him, but the right hon. Gentleman also wants to sit idly by and watch the rail network be decimated. Why cannot some courage and leadership be shown by the motley crew on the Conservative Front Bench—

Dr. Mawhinney: What is Labour's policy?

Mr. McLeish: The Secretary of State asks for our policy, but the real issue for the people of Britain is why a rail network that needs investment, encouragement and a way forward into the next century has to deal with the ravages of a privatisation which, in many people's eyes, is a fiasco. In fact, the media is running out of words to describe the mishmash of Government policy. The tragedy is that even if their objective could be accomplished, and it cannot, damage is being done to the morale of those who provide the service and to the very service itself.
Conservative Members keep asking us for our policy. Why do not the Government tell us why, for the first time since 1948, there will be no new orders for rolling stock from British Rail or from 25 operators? That is the question that the public want answered. They do not want the smokescreen of, "Where are your policies?" The Government are on a hook and it is high time that they dealt with some of the issues.
The Secretary of State waffled on about whether the regulator is so independent that the right hon. Gentleman can do nothing other than stand idly by. It was the

Government who introduced and pushed through the House that ruination of a Railways Act in 1993. However, under section 4 the regulator and the Secretary of State have dual responsibilities and both have a duty to passengers. The same section also says that through ticketing is one of the subjects that will be covered by that— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. My views on seated interventions apply as equally to Secretaries of State as, to anyone else.

Dr. Mawhinney: If the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) had been listening, he would know that I had dealt with that question in my speech.

Mr. McLeish: I enjoyed your rebuke of the Secretary of State, Madam Deputy Speaker, more than I enjoyed his subsequent intervention.
I want to conclude my remarks with two important points. First, the Government want us to believe that the problems are not their responsibility. They are trying to slide out of that key question of responsibility, but we have a document to support our claims. The issue is not the minimum or the maximum; it is not consultation—which is a sham anyway—it is whether, when the House divides, the Government are willing to support the proposal that 294 core stations should offer through ticketing while the remainder are abandoned to the vagaries of the market.
Secondly, will the Government now assume the responsibilities provided for in the Railways Act and inject some sanity into the debate about the future of the railways? I am a very moderate person; all I want is some common sense from the Government. The people of Britain share Labour's view; the passengers who use the network share our view. I hope that when the Minister for Railways and Roads responds to the debate he will be all sweetness and light, put the nonsense of the regulator's report behind him and begin to address the real issues that dominate the debate about the future of the rail network.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I hope that I shall be all sweetness and light and so not disappoint the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) in that respect. He suggested that the consultation exercise—he called it a sham—was designed to get my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State off the hook. However, as I understood the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), he argued that the consultation exercise had put my right hon. Friend on the hook. Perhaps the two hon. Gentlemen should agree on which it is.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central then quoted, as is typical of the Labour party, from what he claimed was a secret report—something of dreadful import, which suggested that there should be between 400 and 500 core stations. Had he listened to my right hon. Friend's opening speech, he would have known—as he should have known anyway—that currently only 440 of British Rail's 2,500 stations have the physical capability to offer a complete through-ticketing service. In contrast to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, the hon. Member for Fife, Central said that he would speak up for the regulator who was being abused. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, Central had in mind some of the opening


comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who took considerable pains to rubbish the office and the person of the regulator.
I am surprised that there remains some scepticism among Opposition Members about the extent of the Government's commitment to through ticketing. We all know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a reputation for being a man who means what he says and says what he means. If Opposition Front-Bench Members had been listening to my right hon. Friend's excellent speech, they would have heard him reaffirm the Government's commitment to through ticketing.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Watts: No, I must make progress at this stage.
My right hon. Friend went through the various occasions on which the Government's commitment has been reiterated. He dealt with the point on which the hon. Member for Fife, Central invited my right hon. Friend to comment, which is that section 4 of the Railways Act 1993 places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote measures to facilitate journeys involving more than one operator and states specifically that through ticketing is one such measure. My right hon. Friend went on to say that the same duty applies equally to the regulator, and that it was in the exercise of that duty that he published the consultation document on retailing tickets at stations. My right hon. Friend went on to explain that he also has the power to give guidance to the regulator under the Railways Act.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister answer two simple questions? If the consultation is a real exercise, when will the Government submit their response and what will he in it, especially in relation to the core station figure of 294?

Mr. Watts: Let us first allow the consultation process to get properly under way. Every interested party will be able to make representations, and I am sure that the regulator will look on today's debate as a part of that process. Certainly, my hon. Friends have made valuable points about the stations in their constituencies. Let us see what the regulator proposes should be the framework for imposing requirements on the operators. It would be premature, and almost churlish, of my right hon. Friend to start offering further guidance to the regulator before the consultation process has got properly under way.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Watts: No, I must make progress, or I feel that I shall not be able to reply to all the important points which have been made.
Let us return to the widespread myth that all British Rail stations provide a full range of ticketing facilities. Those who ask for a guarantee that the status quo will be maintained ought to ask themselves what the status quo is. The availability of a full service at stations is restricted by limitations on staff resources, fares information about remote journeys and ticket-issuing equipment.
More than 1,200 British Rail stations are totally unmanned and offer no staff ticketing facility. Only 440 stations have direct access to the seat reservation database which is critical to the issuing of some through tickets. British Rail itself has no central record of the precise range of ticketing services offered by every station in its network. The current position is that matters are left very much to local commercial judgment.
My hon. Friends and I, who represent some of the more marginal seats, have been threatened with dire consequences as a result of the regulator's consultation on through ticketing. Indeed, I was rather surprised that no Opposition Member made any mention of the impact of the proposals of the consultation on Slough. That may have been out of kindness, but, unlike my right hon. Friend, I am sometimes a slightly cynical man. The reason they did not mention it might have had something to do with the egg which the Labour party found on its face last week, when it announced that none of the three stations in my constituency would be a core station under the proposals set out in appendix A of the regulator's document. Of course, it was always the case that Slough, which is No. 56 in the hierarchy of stations selling a full range of through tickets and which has every facility—

Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Minister. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has just returned. Before you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, he said that many of my hon. Friends and I were sponsored and controlled by trade unions. [Interruption.] I took exception to that at the time, but I want your advice on the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Dartford is prepared to withdraw his remark, nothing further need be done. If he is not prepared to do that, may I ask you for permission to refer— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a point of order. I expect to be able to hear it.

Dr. Marek: If the hon. Member for Dartford withdraws his remark, that will be the end of the matter. If not, may I have your advice as to how the matter can be raised in the Privileges Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Madam Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a matter of privilege, the course for him is clear. The matter may not be discussed across the Floor of the House, and he must write directly to Madam Speaker.

Mr. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I withdraw any imputation, if that is required, but the best way to clear up the matter up once and for all, and to avoid any misunderstanding in the future, would be for all Opposition Members to resign their sponsorships.

Mr. Bayley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) suggested that there should be no fear for through ticketing because one could purchase tickets from travel agents, yet, when making that observation, he did not announce to the House that he is a paid consultant for a firm of travel agents.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel that the matter can now be dealt with adequately in other ways.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have done so had you been kind enough to call me to speak.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now return to the debate. I ask hon. Members to remember that a very important debate is to follow this one.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dartford


demanded that Opposition Members declare their interests when making interventions. The fact that many of my hon. Friends had not at that point made interventions may have escaped his notice. That seems to be the defence that the hon. Member for Gravesham is putting up.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair earlier dealt with this matter at some length. I do not propose at this stage to take any more points of order on it.

Mr. Watts: rose—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The rules of the House state that a Member is required to declare an interest in any intervention, apart from during a question.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is up to each individual Member to decide when or how he makes a declaration of interest.

Mr. Watts: I was making the point that perhaps the egg which the Labour party found on its face last week when it made false claims about the impact of the proposals in the consultation document on my constituency led Labour Members to make no mention of the matter today. Indeed, the fact that they had to be corrected on that point shows clearly that they were indulging in their normal practice of commenting on a document which they had not bothered to read first.
The Opposition then switched their attack to the two other stations in my constituency, Langley and Burnham. Although they are both extremely important in offering services to my constituents who commute to London or Reading, neither of them has APTIS, so they are not capable of issuing a full range of tickets or of making seat reservations and selling tickets for InterCity services. If that is all that I have to fear, I have few qualms about facing my electorate in two years' time.
I am conscious of the importance of the debate that follows this one. I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity to respond to all the important constituency points that have been raised by hon. Members. I shall endeavour to do so as fully as possible by correspondence.
I invite the House to support overwhelmingly the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to reject the Labour motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 317.

Division No. 40]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Denham, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dewar, Donald


Ainger, Nick
Dixon, Don


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dobson, Frank


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Donohoe, Brian H


Allen, Graham
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Barnes, Harry
Enright, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Etherington, Bill


Battle, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bayley, Hugh
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, Andrew F
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Don (Bath)


Berry, Roger
Foulkes, George


Betts, Clive
Fraser, John


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Blunkett, David
Galbraith, Sam


Boateng, Paul
Galloway, George


Boyes, Roland
Gapes, Mike


Bradley, Keith
George, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godsiff, Roger


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Stephen
Gordon, Mildred


Caborn, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D N
Gunnell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hain, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Mike


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hanson, David


Chidgey, David
Hardy, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Church, Judith
Harris, David


Clapham, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Eric (Midtothian)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hendron, Dr Joe


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Coffey, Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hodge, Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Doug


Cummings, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hume, John


Dafis, Cynog
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Ingram, Adam


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Janner, Greville


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Johnston, Sir Russell






Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jowell, Tessa
Prescott Rt Hon John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Radice, Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Randall, Stuart


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Redmond, Martin


Kirkwood, Archy
Reid, Dr John


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rendel, David


Lewis, Terry
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Litherland, Robert
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Livingstone, Ken
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rogers, Allan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooker.Jeff


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Ian
Ruddock, Joan


McCrea, Rev William
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McGrady, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Clare


McLeish, Henry
Simpson, Alan


Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


MacShane, Denis
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Maddock, Diana
Spellar.John


Mahon, Alice
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mallon, Seamus
Steinberg, Gerry


Mandelson, Peter
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meacher, Michael
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Meale, Alan
Timms, Stephen


Michael, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tyler, Paul


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Vaz, Keith


Milburn, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Miller, Andrew
Wallace, James


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Walley, Joan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morgan, Rhodri
Wareing, Robert N


Morley, Elliot
Watson, Mike


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Welsh, Andrew


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wicks, Malcolm


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mudie, George
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mullin, Chris
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wise, Audrey


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Worthington, Tony


O'Hara, Edward
Wray, Jimmy


Olner.Bill
Wright, Dr Tony


O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pearson, Ian
Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Dennis Turner.


Pendry, Tom






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan, Alan


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Duncan Smith, Iain


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Elletson, Harold


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ashby, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evennett, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fanner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fishburn, Dudley


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forman, Nigel


Bates, Michael
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Fry, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis.John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Garnier, Edward


Brandreth, Gyles
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gillan, Cheryl


Bright, Sir Graham
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorst, Sir John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butler, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hague, William


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, Sir John


Clappison, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawksley, Warren


Coe, Sebastian
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Congdon, David
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Couchman, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cran, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Horam, John


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Delvin, Tim
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dorrel, Rt Hon Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunter, Andrew


Dover, Den
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas






Jack, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jenkin, Bernard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Renton, Rt Hon Trm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Richards, Rod


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Robathan, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knapman, Roger
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knox, Sir David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sackville, Tom


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luff, Peter
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


MacKay, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Madel, Sir David
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Allan


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Streeter, Gary


Mates, Michael
Sumberg, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Sweeney, Walter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sykes.John


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Ward, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waterson, Nigel


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Pickles, Eric
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John





Whitney, Ray
Wolfson, Mark


Whittingdale, John
Wood, Timothy


Widdecombe, Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining through ticketing; welcomes the publication by the Rail Regulator of the Consultation Document "Retailing of Tickets at Stations"; endorses the view expressed in the document that the continuation of network benefits such as through ticketing "will be one of the key tests of the success of the restructuring of the industry"; notes that despite massive investment in British Rail the proportion of travel undertaken and freight moved by train has steadily decreased during nationalisation; and supports the Government's commitment to seeking to reverse this decline through the creation of a flourishing railway system operated by the private sector which will offer a better deal for passengers and for freight customers.

Fisheries

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. There is to be a limit of 10 minutes on speeches and she trusts that Front Benchers will exercise considerable self-restraint.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the agreement of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, allowing Spanish fishing vessels into all areas of the Irish Box other than Area VIIa and Area VIIf north of 50° 30' and allowing increased access for Spanish fishing vessels to the remaining waters to the west of the United Kingdom; believes that this agreement presents an unacceptable threat to the long-term economic viability of fishing communities in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and places an unsustainable pressure upon the fish stocks in these already sensitive waters; and calls upon the Government to convey to the European Commission the extent to which this agreement has undermined the credibility of the Common Fisheries Policy in the view of the United Kingdom industry and to raise in the Council of Fisheries Ministers and in the European Council the whole question of the extent of access granted by the Common Fisheries Policy to non-United Kingdom registered vessels to fish in the waters around the United Kingdom.
The motion sets out—objectively, I believe—the agreement that was reached at the Council of Fisheries Ministers before Christmas and declares that it is unacceptable because of its implications for the long-term future of our fishing communities. It calls on the Government to spell out to Brussels the fact that the deal is undermining any confidence that our industry had in the common fisheries policy and urges the Minister to raise the question of access to British waters for non-British vessels.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: I must point out that I am not going to give way too frequently for the reason outlined by Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman and his party have repeatedly made it clear that they would accept without argument everything that came from Brussels so how can he, in all seriousness, move this motion when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has negotiated an excellent deal, especially for the fishermen of the north-west coast, by ensuring that the Spanish continue to be excluded from the Irish sea?

Dr. Strang: If that is all that we are going to get, the less I give way the better. The hon. Gentleman talks nonsense. We have fundamentally opposed the common agricultural policy and have criticised aspects of the common fisheries policy. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in the course of my speech.
The amendment calls on the House to congratulate the Government on securing the agreement. I do not know what sort of world Ministers are living in, but why has the agreement been denounced by all the fishermen's organisations? I refer hon. Members to a couple of headlines. The Times of 11 January 1995 contains the headline:

fishermen plan to wage war on Spanish trawlers".
The accompanying article states:
Fishermen in Devon and Cornwall yesterday promised a 'prolonged campaign' of action, beginning next month, to keep Spanish trawlers out of British waters … Mike Townsend, chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers' Association, said that his members would consider any means possible to stop the Spanish fishing in the 90,000 square miles around Ireland.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: No, I am not giving way again. The headline in this week's Fishing News is "We face ruin". The first sentence of the article states that fishermen in the south-west
say the Brussels deal on Spanish accession reached just before Christmas will destroy them. They totally reject it and say they will not take part in any further consultation to finalise the agreement.
As the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) knows, his colleagues who represent constituencies in the south-west criticised the deal before Christmas.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Dr. Strang: I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman. I have given way once and may do so again but I shall not be interrupted after every sentence.
The truth is that the deal has been rejected by the fishing industry.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his view very clear. No hon. Member is obliged to give way unless he or she chooses to do so.

Dr. Strang: If the deal is so good that the House should congratulate the Government on it, why did not the Minister vote for it when it came before the Council of Fisheries Ministers after all the negotiations? When his grandchildren ask him what he did as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to keep the Spanish vessels out of British waters and to defend our fishing communities, the answer will be, "I abstained." It is nonsense to ask the House to congratulate the Government on the deal. The truth is that it is a bad deal and the House knows it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should not have to remind hon. Members twice in about two minutes of the normal rules and courtesies of the House.

Dr. Strang: It is not a good deal; it is a bad deal, and the Government know it. Spanish vessels will have new access to most areas of the Irish box. Contrary to the assertion in the Government's amendment, only area VIIa and the northern part of the Bristol channel will be protected. Spanish vessels will also have increased access to all other waters, stretching from the south-west of England to the north of Scotland.
Hon. Members who know anything about the fishing industry know perfectly well that stocks in those waters are under enormous pressure. They are sensitive waters and there is no case for additional fishing effort in them. There is no case for Spanish access to those


waters. Under the Spanish accession treaty, whatever deal was made on western waters other than the Irish box, it did not need come into effect until the year 2002. The Government have still to explain why they have allowed the changes to become effective from 1996.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Strang: I shall give way to one hon. Member—the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—and then I must continue.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he confirm that it will be part of Labour party policy to reclaim the territorial waters for British fishermen only?

Dr. Strang: I want a broad expression of view from Conservative Members. As the hon. Lady knows, we cannot accept her position on the European Union or the common fisheries policy. The common fisheries policy is flawed and it is time to address that problem.
It is a bad deal. The Government's first defence is the pretence that it is a good deal. The Government's second defence is that it was inevitable and there was no alternative but to negotiate an agreement along those lines. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that it was our opening position. In October 1993 the Minister of State explicitly said that the Council of Fisheries Ministers needed to agree to continue the current restrictions on access to the Irish box and the North sea. He said that the United Kingdom Government's concern was that the new arrangements should, in practice, confine Spanish and Portuguese fishing activities as closely as possible to the current pattern, but that was not accepted. Far from saying that increased access was inevitable, the Minister of State wanted the fishing activities to be confined to the historical pattern.
The deal is a reflection of the Government's failure to represent the United Kingdom's national interest in Europe. Since 1985 the Government have had a chance to win support for a fair deal for our fishermen. All the Government needed to secure was the support of two other member states, one of which had to be a major state such as Italy or Germany. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Conservative Members ask, "Who?" How was it that the Government could not obtain the support of even Germany or Italy? It is disturbing to realise that we have come to the stage when, if an Opposition spokesperson asks the Government why they could not obtain the support of one large member state and one small member state in the European Union, Conservative Members laugh. That is a measure of how far we have sunk and how hopeless our position is in Europe. The Government are totally unfit to represent the British national interest.
The Government's policy on Europe does not reflect what needs to be done. It does not reflect the interests of our fishermen, but the Government's need to go with the shifting pattern of opinion and divisions on Europe within the Conservative party. It is a clear example of

the Government's failure, not just on this subject, but on others, adequately to argue the case and win the argument for Britain in the European Union.

Mr. Gary Streeter: What would the hon. Gentleman do?

Dr. Strang: I am grateful for that intervention from a sedentary position and I shall answer the question of how we move forward from here—[Interruption.] Hon. Members might not think that the debate is important, but many people outside the Chamber are interested in it. There are many people in the fishing communities and the wider British community who are interested in our debate and hon. Members should have the courtesy to allow the mover of the motion to be heard.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member constantly to refer to the south-west while adamantly refusing to give way to anyone from the south-west?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Dr. Strang: There is a strong rumour—

Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to a lack of interest in the debate among Conservative Members when our Benches are packed and the Opposition Benches are sparsely occupied?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches—I am thankful to say.

Dr. Strang: It would be wise to continue the debate.
There is a strong rumour that the Government will this evening announce that they are to provide additional cash aid for the industry. Hon. Members who take a close interest in fisheries matters will be aware of the state of play between the industry and the Government. But some hon. Members participating in the debate may not be fully apprised of the situation. They may not recognise that we are soon to see the spectacle of the United Kingdom Government fighting the United Kingdom fishing industry in the European courts. The Government's compulsory tariff scheme has been referred by the High Court to the European Court of Justice.
Hon. Members may not be aware that in July 1993 the Government invited fisheries organisations to submit proposals for the way forward on conservation. Those organisations—including the Scottish Fisherman's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—submitted excellent proposals, which they went to great lengths to achieve and which often caused controversy in their ranks. What has the Government's reaction to the proposals been so far? Nothing.
Hon. Members may not be aware that, after years of refusal, in 1992 the Government finally conceded that a decommissioning scheme should be introduced. A small scheme has been launched. The Select Committee on Agriculture concluded that it was so small that the cuts achieved would be more than offset by efficiency gains in the remainder of the fleet.
Extra money is needed for the modernisation and improvement of our port facilities. If the Government announce extra money tonight for decommissioning, modernisation and our port facilities—additional aid from our Government for the fishing industry—that will be welcomed. But there is a problem. If extra money is to be made available for a decommissioning scheme it must be remembered that the point of decommissioning was to bring our fishing effort and capacity into line with the stocks. It is unacceptable that money should be announced for decommissioning that is intended to facilitate Spanish access in our waters. It is unacceptable that our fishermen should be asked to take up a decommissioning scheme which proposes to scrap their vessels not in order to bring the fishing fleet in line with fishing stocks, but to enable Spanish vessels to catch our fish. Of course, Government assistance is welcome; but it is not sufficient. We have to address the issue at the European level.
Much of the package is yet to be agreed. For example, we do not know how many additional Spanish vessels will have access to the waters north of the Irish box. We know that vessels must be listed on a register and that each Government will put forward their proposals for controlling the fishing effort of each member state. Therefore, it seems that not only will Governments put forward vessels to go on the register but each Government will propose a system for controlling the fishing effort. Presumably, that means that different countries will have different arrangements for controlling the fishing effort. Perhaps the Minister will explain that.
Important parts of the deal are yet to be settled. The House of Commons must make it clear that we want a better arrangement and a more satisfactory outcome than the one that was agreed before Christmas.

Mr. John Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: I will give way to one hon. Member from the south-west, and that is it.

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has said that he does not favour abandoning the common fisheries policy, although that is what the fishermen now want. He said that he is in favour of improving the common fisheries policy. Can he list the improvements that he made to that policy during the Labour Government of 1975 to 1979?

Dr. Strang: The common fisheries policy as it currently exists came into operation in the early 1980s and it was reviewed in the early 1990s. Of course, there were arrangements prior to that. The Minister should tell the Commission that, as a result of the latest agreement, our fishermen have lost any faith that they had in the common fisheries policy.
Effective conservation is possible only with the co-operation and support of the fishermen. Our motion calls on the Minister to raise with the Commission the question of access by non-British vessels to our waters.
I believe that the common fisheries policy is fundamentally flawed. The overriding objective of any fisheries policy—whether it is a British fisheries policy, a common fisheries policy for the European Union, or

a Canadian fisheries policy—should be to conserve fishing stocks for future generations of fishermen. In my opinion, the common fisheries policy is not designed to achieve that aim. The Government have an obsession with avoiding national discrimination and they have reached the point of allowing foreign vessels with no historical pattern of fishing in the area to enter our waters. We have to meet that issue head on.
The problem will not be solved overnight. The Government should not pretend that it is a good deal; it is not. It is no use their pretending that it was the best that could be achieved in the circumstances. I am not talking about what happened at the December Council; the situation has built up over two or three years. We are now in a position whereby we cannot muster the support needed to block the deal on the basis of qualified majority voting.
It will not be enough for hon. Members to abstain from voting on the motion this evening. The fishing communities and the British people as a whole want the motion to be carried. Britain has a proud maritime history. Our fishing communities are part of the economic and social fabric of this country.

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Opportunistic nonsense.

Dr. Strang: If the hon. Gentleman does riot understand the way that the British people feel about our fishing communities he does not understand what the debate is about. The British people want the motion to be passed because they want to see arrangements which will enable our fishing communities to have the opportunity—I put it in no stronger terms than that—

Mr. Sykes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is the hon. Gentleman answering sedentary interventions, but not those interventions from the Floor?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I also add my well-known view that sedentary interventions are not acceptable, and I hope that they will cease.

Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: No, I will not give way. Madam Deputy Speaker has asked us to make our speeches brief. The new arrangements recommended by the Jopling report also ask Front Bench speakers to be brief. I have already given way on numerous occasions.
Our motion is in the best interests of the fishing communities. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks). Their amendment accepts the Opposition motion in its entirety and simply adds a few sentences with which I do not disagree.
The Opposition motion, which has been accepted by those Conservative Members who represent fishing communities, aims to defend the long-term future of our fishing industry. It has the support of the British people and I urge the House to vote for it.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "Ministers" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
congratulates the Government on securing the exclusion of Spanish fishing vessels from the Irish Sea and the Bristol Channel, the limiting of Spanish fishing within the rest of the Irish Box to 40 vessels simultaneously and the inclusion of special restrictions on Spanish vessels within the Box West of Scotland; notes that the agreement does not call into question the continued exclusion of Spanish vessels from the North Sea and the principle of relative stability; recognises this outcome represents a major improvement for United Kingdom fishermen compared to the original Commission proposals, the negotiation of which was made more difficult by the failure to win Hague Preferences for South West English fishing communities in 1976; welcomes the undertaking the Government secured from the Commission to provide annual reports on the findings of Commission Fisheries Inspectors; notes the Government's current annual expenditure of some £25 million on fisheries enforcement and welcomes the Government's commitment to ensure effective policing of the agreement; welcomes the Government's success in extending the benefits of the EC's structural programmes to areas of the United Kingdom dependent on fishing; notes that the Government are also spending some £17 million per annum on fisheries research and monitoring and some £5 million per annum on other forms of assistance to the fisheries sector; notes the Government's current substantial programme of decommissioning expenditure; and welcomes its commitment to provide further programmes in 1996–97 and 1997–98.".
Madam Deputy Speaker, you requested Front Bench speakers to be brief in their remarks during the debate, but I do not think that you precluded hon. Members from making speeches. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) failed to make a speech; it slipped his mind.
Indeed, the issue has slipped the Labour mind on a number of occasions. A good way of gauging the importance that a party attaches to an issue is to look at what it says about it in its election manifesto. The hon. Gentleman does not want to be reminded that the Labour party said nothing about fishing in its election manifesto of 1992. It is even more extraordinary—in view of the common fisheries policy and other crucial European issues—that there was nothing about it in the Labour party's Euromanifesto either. That is a better test of the Opposition's sincerity than the hon. Gentleman's rather thin speech.
All hon. Members know that the Labour party does not care two hoots about fishing; with one or two honourable exceptions, it knows nothing about the subject. The hon. Gentleman moved the motion in an attempt to score some political points and to make a few headlines tomorrow by persuading one or two of my hon. Friends to support him. That is what the Opposition's motion is about; it is not about United Kingdom fishing communities at all.

Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for at last allowing me to say something in the debate. If he goes back even further he will find that the Labour party's 1987 election manifesto also did not say a word about fishing. One needs a magnifying glass to find what the Labour party has said about fishing. If the Opposition are so concerned about the issue, why have they tacked on a

measly three-hour debate at the end of an Opposition day debate? If they really cared about fishing, they would have allowed a full day for debate and not a measly three hours.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is clear that the Opposition consider the matter far less important than through ticketing on the railways.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made some straightforward mistakes. He said:
I mean, for a start, originally these changes were not going to come into operation till year 2002.
In fact, the Spanish act of accession provided for the Irish box arrangements to end after 1995. It also provided for the other restrictions to be reviewed in 1993. The hon. Gentleman ought to correct that misstatement. The radio interviewer was not fully briefed on the subject and did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had not got it right.

Dr. Strang: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the transcript of the debate that we had before Christmas, he will see that we reached agreement on the position. The Irish box arrangements ended automatically, but a whole lot of other arrangements outwith the Irish box could have continued until 2002.

Mr. Waldegrave: All the ships on the reference list would have had no restrictions on access whatever and there would have been no controls on the Irish box.
On the "Today" programme today, when the question at issue was the Irish box, the hon. Gentleman said:
I mean, for a start, originally these changes were not going to come into operation until the year 2002".
He should have made it clear to the interviewer that the Irish box failed, as it would have done in 1996.
The Opposition's own policy, which I shall mention as the hon. Gentleman has not done so, is called regionalisation. The hon. Gentleman made it up in one or two radio studios around the country. As I understand it, the basis of it is that we should have controls to limit the access of fishermen from one region of the United Kingdom to other regions of the United Kingdom and other parts of the Community. That would be wonderful for the fishermen at Brixham, who spend a great deal of time in the North sea, and for the tuna, mackerel and herring fishermen who have to follow stocks which migrate. Sailors from Lowestoft, and the Grimsby sailors who are well known to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), go to Norwegian, Dutch and Danish waters. The hon. Gentleman's policy would restrict them—or, in his words, regionalise them— around the coasts of the United Kingdom. It is a typical half-baked, meaningless Labour policy made up on the run in an interview studio and probably already abandoned.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I understand that the Minister's own track record is that he attended one Fisheries Council and abstained at one. Does he feel sufficiently in command of his subject to lecture anyone else about their knowledge or lack of it in respect of the fishing industry?

Mr. Waldegrave: I feel every confidence in lecturing the Labour Front Bench spokesman. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) wishes to defend the Labour party on this, that is an internal problem for him which I shall not seek to enter into at present.
The fact that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is confused is confirmed by the fact that he said something completely different before Christmas, when he stated:
The problem is in the short run and right up to the year 2002 we have to operate within the framework of the current CFP".
That is the end of the regionalisation policy, so the pirouettes have already taken place, as they do elsewhere in his party.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who I am sure has a great deal of good will and sympathy from everyone on this side of the House. Among the farrago of nonsense from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was the question of how one explains to the fishing community why we are paying to take our boats out of the water so that the fish that they would otherwise have caught will now be caught by the Spanish and Portuguese. Would it be right to suggest that the answer is that under qualified majority voting the Luxemburgers have 20 times as much influence per capita over what happens to British fish, so there is very little that the Government can do about it until we come out of the Common fisheries policy?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall come to decommissioning at the proper place in my speech. I remind my hon: Friend that there is nothing in the deal or in the accession deal which gives any more fish to Spain under the quota system. We have about 43 per cent. of the quotas in the relevant western waters. Spain has about 2 per cent. of the quotas in those relevant western waters. That has not changed, and nor has the balance between them.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the agreement that he reached, which was better than was predicted, raised our quotas by £14 million above the level originally suggested by the Commission?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is indeed so. We negotiated a number of the swaps that are usually undertaken. For instance, we got a large extra tonnage of cod and whiting for the northern Irish fishermen, which is extremely useful to them.

Mr. Anthony Steen: One understands about the quota, but Spanish fishermen will also be allowed to fish without limit non-quota stock in the Irish sea, which will affect the fishermen of Brixham considerably.

Mr. Waldegrave: That is perfectly true, but the crucial point is that the fishing effort cannot increase overall. That is the point on which we have to stand.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: Let me proceed a little. I want briefly to remind the House, as I want to get on to the positive actions that we can take, about the Labour record on the issue.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made great play of how I should have done this or that. For five years, between 1974 and 1979, his party negotiated with various specific objectives and had the benefit of the veto as it

was before qualified majority voting. Its performance was lamentable. Mr. David Owen, who was then part of the Labour party and may be again for all I know—

Mr. Derek Enright: No chance.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman says, "No chance". Lord Owen gave away the vital issue of Hague preferences for the south-west. Had he not made a complete mess of that negotiation in 1976, much of the pressure on south-western fishermen that we are debating today would have been relieved as they would have had the same privileges as Irish and Scottish fishermen. That was a poor piece of negotiation and he had the veto to deploy.

Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend knows the ins and outs of the matter, but can he explain why we did not properly renegotiate the common fisheries policy in the run-up to the Maastricht negotiations?

Mr. Waldegrave: It was not on the agenda at that time. I shall come to the future in due course, but I hope that my hon. Friend will hear something that he likes about how the British Government will approach the measures.
The truth of the negotiation before December was set out with typical lucidity and clarity by my right hon. and noble friend Lord Tebbit talking on the radio just before Christmas. He was kind enough to agree with the interviewer, who put the proposition to him that I got the best possible deal for Britain. My right hon. and noble Friend went on to say:
It does go back to the accession agreement and it was thought at that time to be in British national interests that the Spaniards should be brought in, and I guess in the longer term it probably is.
At the time, the House supported that position. My noble friend Lady Thatcher said:
The terms are very satisfactory for the United Kingdom.
The then Leader of the Opposition, now the European Commissioner for Transport, said:
I welcome the. enlargement of the European Economic community membership with the accession of the newest democracies of Spain and Portugal".—[Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1061–62.]
The Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), said:
We welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal. The Opposition do not welcome accession blindly or ignorantly or oblivious of the difficulties and anxieties".—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 883.]
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, went a great deal further, saying:
By bringing Spain into the fisheries regime and now applying to Spain the regulations on, for example, mesh sizes, we are exerting a control which would not have been possible if Spain had remained outside the Community. It was very difficult to get and I congratulate the Government on it."—[Official Report, 4 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 335.]


I hope that the Liberal Democrats will be honest enough to stand by what their spokesman said then and vote down the motion today because they know perfectly well that the negotiation— [Interruption.]

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House again that if the Minister does not give way, others must resume their seats.

Mr. Waldegrave: Opposition Members know perfectly well that what I was negotiating in December was winning back ground that they realised at the time would be lost.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend reflect for a moment on his remark that the Labour Government were negotiating with the advantages of the veto? After his experience, where many of us would concede that he made a good job of a difficult position, is it now the Government's considered view that negotiations about our territorial waters ought not to be subject to qualified majority voting?

Mr. Waldegrave: If things had fallen out differently and we had had no qualified majority voting on the matter, I would have found negotiating easier and I would have done a great deal better than John Silkin, who gained nothing even though he had the veto to deploy.
The position now, as my hon. Friend knows, is that as part of the Single European Act, out of which great benefits came in the establishment of the single market, qualified majority voting covers those issues which affect the single market. It is a good moment to make the point that our fishermen benefit greatly from the single market. We export about £450 million worth of fish and fish products to the single market and to the European market. Fishermen from our ports catch species which do not have a real market in the United Kingdom for historical reasons. Those fish are sold at much higher prices in Europe than if the single market did not exist. If our fishermen had to export against tariff barriers, they would not enjoy that income. By a tradition going back hundreds of years, people in this country eat much less fish than the French or Spanish. The Spanish eat 70 lb of fish per head each year while the figure for the UK is 14 lb. We must maintain access to that market for the sake of our fishermen.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Waldegrave: I must press on or I shall get into trouble with Madam Deputy Speaker.
Until an hour or two before the December negotiations ended, we were steadily winning back ground and secured extra gains—particularly in relation to Scotland, which is why I abstained rather than voted against. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East rightly said, the negotiations are continuing because there are other matters to negotiate. If people are giving things, it is bad negotiating policy not to respond. The hon. Gentleman has experience of that. He was good at negotiating with his colleagues

between 1974 and 1979 and obtaining nothing. After five years of steady negotiation to extend fishery limits from 12 miles to 50 miles, the limits remained at 12 miles.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I did not claim then and do not claim now that we returned triumphant, having won everything, but we achieved two thirds of our objectives. If the strict legislative and legal basis had been followed, we could have returned with nothing. People know that it was not a bad deal. The Spanish know that, too. Just before Christmas, the Spanish newspaper El Pais commented:
Inevitably, the Spanish fishery associations will see no cause for celebration.
Correct. El Mundo quoted Jaime Tejedor, chairman of the Basque country fishermen's association, describing as "terrorism by the state" the agreement allowing Spain limited access to European Union fisheries in 1996. He said:
If they were going to give up like this, there was no need to go to Brussels to negotiate. I thought they were going to be firm this time, that they were going to defend our fishing industry to the hilt, as the President of the Government, Felipe Gonzalez, promised, even to the extent of vetoing the enlargement of the EU, but that isn't what happened.
That is quite right—it is not what happened. The report continued:
The Galician fishermen spoke in similar terms, and consider `unacceptable' the discrimination against the Spanish fleet regarding its exclusion from the Irish Box. They believe the agreement will bring little benefit to Spain from 1996, since it establishes further limitations on the fleet's access to resources and maintains the unequal treatment to which Spain has been subjected since the treaty of accession was signed.
Another El Mundo report stated:
Spain will join the Common Fisheries Policy on I January 1996 … The compromise agreed yesterday is a long way from the full participation in the CFP sought by the Spanish Government.
Those are true and sober assessments from the Spanish end—how it looks from Spain. We returned with a continuation of the Irish box, with only 40 ships in it, whereas halfway through the negotiations the Spanish still wanted 70, and there might have been no Irish box protection. We kept them out of the Irish sea and the Bristol channel, and we maintained their exclusion from the North sea, which is crucial to British fishermen.
When there are further big negotiations on the common fisheries policy in 2002, or perhaps earlier, we shall have established Spain's exclusion from large areas as part of a non-discriminatory and balanced policy. That will give far better hopes of keeping control in the long-term future. We have added two extra zones to the North sea under that principle.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East correctly quoted a headline from Fishing News, but for some reason he did not quote its comment on 6 January:
The Ministers did fight hard in Brussels and got more than many feared.
That, too, is correct. People who really understand the issue know that it was not a bad deal in a weak situation.

Mr. Robert Hicks: My right hon. Friend will notice that the Order Paper includes an amendment in the names of hon. Friends from the far


south-west emphasising the need for a Government commitment to negotiate with our European partners to ensure fundamental changes in the CFP and, in the interim, to introduce a meaningful decommissioning scheme—for which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have asked.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. We need a CFP that is better at controlling stocks. No one doubts that there is too much fishing capacity in Europe, including the United Kingdom. A decommissioning scheme is needed so that our fleet is profitable and there can be reinvestment in building new ships. That will secure the industry's long-term future against a background of somewhat lower fishing effort.
I can tell my hon. Friend and others who have raised the same point—including my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—of a further addition to the decommissioning scheme. We will add to the present scheme of £25 million over three years a further £28 million, more than doubling the size of the scheme. It is essential that the British fleet should be profitable and trade at full capacity and the scheme will secure the long-term future better than anything else. That is one of the things that we must do immediately, to make the present situation work.
In the House the other day, a number of my hon. Friends rightly raised the question of enforcement: although Spain has small quotas and we have the biggest, we do not believe that the Spanish play according to the rules. We are not alone in the world in believing that: the Canadians and the Norwegians tell the same story. As none of this starts until next year, we have a little time to review our enforcement systems: our assets, the Royal Navy ships; aerial surveillance, which will be vital; and how to make the hailing in and hailing out system work. Also, my noble Friend Lord Howe reported to the other place yesterday on the satellite system which is under trial.
The Commission inspectorate, which this Government brought into being as a result of work by Lord Walker, is to report back and to be strengthened. Above all, the deployment of Royal Navy ships must be strengthened and correctly located.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who comes from a relevant region.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although additional decommissioning money is most welcome, there is a requirement by the Commission to reduce our overall fleet by 19 per cent. by the end of 1996, but that the industry itself calculates that the sum required will be not less than £75 million?

Mr. Waldegrave: That will not be the only measure in place, as my hon. Friend will be aware from his knowledge of the subject. I hope that he accepts our good faith in putting money on the table today, which shows that we will meet the programme and are taking it

seriously. Most of my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome the statement that I have made. The fishing industry will certainly welcome it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: I will get into a good deal of trouble if I give way so much that no time is left even for the eloquent speeches that Opposition Members are doubtless capable of making.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not complain that I have not been allowed to intervene on the Minister, but is it riot discourteous to the House for a Minister to give way uniquely to hon. Members on his own side?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. It is for the Minister to decide whether or not to give way.

Mr. Waldegrave: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that I gave way several times to his hon. Friends earlier in the debate.
The present system of fisheries management—I think that I shall take most people with me on this—is highly complex, burdensome on fishermen and expensive to operate. For the longer term, we need to look for ways of simplifying it, to see whether it could be more effectively market driven, while still ensuring that exploitation of fish stocks is sustainable. I want to look at a range of ideas and to learn from what other countries are doing—from New Zealand to Norway, from Canada to the south Atlantic—with different types of quota systems and fisheries management, different approaches to enforcement, and so on. I shall also want to examine the scope for further action in technical areas, including technical conservation and discard policy—one of the most offensive aspects of current systems for managing fish.
Over the years, much thought has been given to these matters, hut if we can find better approaches I shall want to discuss them with our industry and, if they seem workable, to take them up with the Fisheries Council.
I therefore intend to ask the fisheries Minister, who enjoys an almost unique degree of respect in the industry for the work that he has done, to convene a group, parallel to the one that I established to review the common agricultural policy, to review the common fisheries policy and to look at all these options again, particularly with a view to limiting overfishing and bureaucracy. We must remove bureaucracy from this business wherever it is found.
Some concern has been expressed on another front currently in the news—the projected framework document on Northern Ireland—that there could be provision for a joint north-south marine fisheries policy for the island. I make it plain today that we do not intend there to be such a policy and that we shall 4make no such proposals.
We shall be looking at the costs and the benefits. We shall be looking at the undoubted problems that the CFP poses for us. We shall also be looking at the benefits of our participation in the single market, which I discussed earlier with my hon. Friends. We need a modern, profitable fleet investing in new boats and new


technology. That is already happening in some places. It is not all doom and gloom. Some areas have had good years and new boats are being built at this very moment—

Mr. John D. Taylor: A few moments ago the Minister said something which requires a little clarification. Can he confirm that there will be no cross-border committee in Ireland with executive powers over fishing?

Mr. Waldegrave: I confirm what I said—that we make it plain that we do not intend that there should be provision for joint north-south marine fisheries. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman—I am not sure that he did not invent them himself—that there are some special arrangements governing inland waters, but we will not have joint arrangements with the Republic to deal with common fisheries policy matters.
As I have said, we need a modern fleet. Today Labour Members have tried to make political capital out of the fishing industry, pretending a sudden concern for it even though they forgot to include it in their manifesto. That is to play politics with the future of a serious industry. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not fall for that old ploy. I remind them of what the Leader of the Opposition has said about negotiating in Europe—that he will negotiate in a consensual manner and that he will never be isolated in Europe. He will never do what poor old John Silkin did, sitting there for five years, with a veto, and getting nowhere at all. At least Silkin had the courage to be isolated. The Leader of the Opposition is throwing in the towel before he has even started on all these issues.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this piece of opportunism from the party of Silkin and of Owen—the party which has now said that it will never stand alone in Europe. We should reject this ridiculous motion and see it for what it is: a rather pathetic ploy to try to mislead and to make political capital out of the fishing industry. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to throw out the Labour motion and to vote for our amendment.

Mr. James Wallace: We shall find out at 10 o'clock tonight whether the bait on the long line that the Minister has cast will be swallowed by those in whose direction it was clearly aimed. I have argued in the House on many occasions in favour of decommissioning. Indeed, the Minister echoed some of my arguments for bringing fishing capacity into line with available stocks. If that was his reason for strengthening the decommissioning scheme, we would warmly welcome it, although we would probably say that the money was not enough.
It was only a matter of weeks ago—on 14 December—that the Minister of State told us that none of this would be possible. The right hon. Gentleman's speech this evening will be regarded by fishermen, especially in the south-west of England, as providing millions of pounds of taxpayers' money simply to lay up British vessels, which will have to make way for Spanish vessels entering our waters. The Secretary of State refused to say whether the additional £28 million will be spread throughout the United Kingdom, in line with the arrangements now in

force for decommissioning. The Minister of State must answer that question and tell us whether the money will be concentrated on the areas most affected by the agreements reached by the Council of Ministers.
It is welcome to see so many hon. Members in the Chamber expressing an interest in the fishing industry. I hope that they will attend many of our future debates on the subject. Those of us who participated in December's debate were in no doubt as to the depth of feeling about the important decision that was to be taken at the Council meeting. We know, too, about the outcry and the expressions of utter dejection on the part of many in the industry thereafter. The fact that we are holding this debate shows just how badly let down the industry has felt following the meeting of the Council of Ministers. Salt was rubbed in the wound when the Minister could not even bring himself to vote against the deal. Tonight, he has moved an amendment which amounts to nothing but self-congratulation.
This decision was not just one of a kind; it is the latest in a series of decisions which have adversely affected the industry. To be fair to him, the Minister of State did a great deal of work during the run-up to the negotiations, talking to the industry and lobbying some of our European partners. During last year's European election campaign, I met fishermen in Devon and Cornwall who believed that they were getting a raw deal the whole time, however, because their industry operated so far from London, in scattered communities. They thought that their interests did not feature largely enough in the minds of Ministers, and that the issues concerning the industry were always subordinated to others. I fear that that impression will have been reinforced this evening, and by the decisions taken in Brussels at the end of December.
One key example of the betrayal of the fishing industry's interests was also the forerunner of these discussions. I saw the Minister look to his Minister of State to find out the answer to this when pressed earlier in the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was right: with the exception of the Irish box, which, it was always known, was to be renegotiated before the end of 1995, the other arrangements in respect of Spanish and Portuguese access were to remain in place until the end of the year 2002. That was set out in a letter from the former Commissioner to our Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, then President of the Council of European Communities. The Commissioner set out the legal position on 23 December 1992:
the general arrangements in the Act of Accession, as regards conditions of access and fishing by the Spanish and Portuguese fleets in the waters of the 'Ten' and vice versa, remain in force until 31 December 2002".
But this House has never been told why the Government supported the Council of Ministers' decision to go back on that.
On 24 June 1993, the Council of Ministers took the view that the
adjustments to the accession arrangements should be undertaken in the spirit of the reform, in order to strengthen its impact.
What reform? What impact? The House has never been told. The Minister owes us and the fishing industry an explanation of why the pass was sold at such an early stage.
The deal that was struck gives rise to a whole series of other questions, too. The Minister won a valuable concession at an earlier Council meeting, when we were


told that the Irish box had become a biologically sensitive zone. How can 40 more vessels enter part of that zone while it is maintained that the British fleet will not be compromised? How does the Minister square that circle?
The Minister said today that the whole Bristol channel would be denied to Spanish vessels. That all depends on how the Bristol channel is defined. The Trevoes head area is one of the most sensitive in terms of breeding stocks, yet the Spanish will have access to it. Will that really be the case? Will that not destroy the conservation purpose of the area? Important issues will arise in fleshing out the deal.
At present, 18 standard Spanish vessels are allowed in the waters of area VI north of the Irish box. It is unclear how many will be allowed in after the deal. Is the Minister able to tell us how many Spanish vessels will be allowed in that area? Will there be more than 18?
We have been told that a system of effort control might be required of member states. What will the Government propose?
What happened to deregulation? I remember that after the meeting of the Council in November deregulation was claimed to be one of the great successes of the British negotiation. I endorsed much of what the Minister said about the need to reduce bureaucracy, but the deal that we are discussing will increase bureaucracy. We shall have more regulation.
The Minister was silent on swaps. I understand that he was silent after the meeting of the Council of Fisheries because he did not know what had happened. As a result of swaps between Spain and, I think, Belgium and France, Spain will be able to fish for cod, haddock, whiting and saithe in areas of western waters where its fishermen were not hitherto allowed.
Can Spain enter into swaps with other European Community nations in, for example, the North sea, which would give it the right to fish in the area for stocks? The Minister shakes his head. I invite him to deny now that the Spanish cannot enter into swaps and get the right to fish white fish in the North sea and, therefore, upset relative stability.
The problem was that the Government were isolated in Europe. When it came to a critical national issue, they had no friends. In the midst of negotiations, Mr. Robert Shrimsley of The Daily Telegraph wrote:
One Tory source said that Mr. Major had been attempting to call in favours across Europe to find an acceptable compromise.
We saw the result of the Prime Minister's efforts. Imagine him phoning the Belgium Prime Minister and saying, "Mr. Dehaene, I did you a great favour by saving you from becoming the president of the Commission. Will you do us a favour and save our vital national fishing interests?"
Year after year, the Government have taken a negative attitude in Europe. When the time comes to try to cash in some credit, they find that they do not have any. Britain's national interests have been fatally compromised by the Government's isolationist approach to European matters for far too long.
The Minister has said that a working group may be set up to reform the common fisheries policy. He told the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that he could not do it earlier because it was not on the agenda at the time of Maastricht. He conveniently avoided mentioning that the

following year the CFP was up for review, during a period when Britain had presidency of the Council. The Government did not take that opportunity.
We welcome the Minister's statement that he is to set up a working party. No doubt, the fishing industry will contribute to it, as it did in 1993 when it was asked for its views on how to take forward technical conservation ideas. Its views seem to have gathered dust either in the Scottish Office or in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We want a commitment that this time the industry's ideas will be given serious treatment. If we are looking to a review of the CFP, let us have a commitment that the views of the industry will be not only sought but acted on.
Somewhere along the line, the Commission has lost its way. No longer does it appear, as once it did, to have in its focus the needs of many of our fishing Industries and fishing communities around our coastline. If we are to review the CFP, we must look to those communities where families depend so much on fishing opportunities. They seem to have been sacrificed in the most recent deal and in a series of deals. We shall support the motion not least because it would enable a fundamental review to be undertaken.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that, between now and the replies by the Front-Bench speakers, speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): First, I shall say a few words about my ministerial colleagues and their performance in Brussels at the climax of protracted negotiations. The climax came on 22 December, when what I think was a disgraceful episode occurred and the United Kingdom was outvoted. I only wish that we had had the veto on fishing policy. I cannot help but observe that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the party represented by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber this evening—would give away the last vestiges of our veto in Europe. That is by the by.
I return to the Ministers. I have one criticism, and one alone, about the way in which they conducted the negotiations, or the way in which they acted. They fought hard and they fought well, and there is much in what they say, given the rotten nature of the hand that they had to play in Brussels during the negotiations. My one criticism is that, despite what my right hon. Friend the Minister said tonight, he abstained rather than voting against the deal. I believe that he should have voted against it.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has, I believe, been the finest Minister with responsibilities for fishing that we have had for many a long year. I pay full tribute to all that he has done, especially in re-establishing links with the industry and the trust of the industry. I am sad that this evening much of the good work that he has done might well be in jeopardy because of the understandable attitude of the industry to what happened in Brussels.
I loathe what happened in Brussels on 22 December. In my opinion—I have used the phrase before—it was a cynical stitch-up of an agreement, which was led by the Commission. All sorts of bilateral deals were struck,


particularly the quota swap between France and Spain that will increase Spanish fishing opportunities. I am sorry to say that at the end of the day the United Kingdom was left completely and utterly isolated. There was little it could do but fight a rearguard action. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister did well, along with the Minister of State, in fighting that action.
Where are we left? What is the future for our fishing industry? I do not mind admitting that I have always described myself as a pragmatic European. I was a Member of the European Parliament for five years. The result of the negotiations, however, has had a profound effect on my attitude to Europe, to our relationship with Europe and to the way in which we shall in future approach fisheries problems. Although the negotiations were about fishing, they encapsulated so many of our difficulties, as I see it, in our future relationships and in the way in which member states will be treated.
What was wrong, and perhaps different, about the negotiations was that, in my reading of the situation, there was no acceptable compromise, I believe that there was a ganging-up against the United Kingdom. I accept that the deal was unpopular in Spain among the fishermen as well but there was a ganging-up by the other member states, egged on by the Commission, and we were skewered in Brussels.
What happens now? We have not reached the end of the story. There are further stages in the CFP. Above all, in 2002 there must be a complete revision of the policy. That will be done on the basis of qualified majority voting. We shall not have a veto. Liberals welcome that, but I do not. Somehow, we must get some control.
I do not have an easy answer, there are many, including my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—I am sorry that she is not in her place because I thought that she was developing a great interest in fishing matters, but clearly it is transient—and some representative members of the industry, who are somehow giving the impression that there is an easy solution.
One of the easy solutions, of course, is to withdraw from the common fisheries policy just like that. I wish that somebody could tell us how that could be achieved. If somebody could convince me that it was possible unilaterally to withdraw from it I would be tempted by that prospect. As the amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) makes clear, I want a fundamental recasting of the arrangements, be they inside or outside the common fisheries policy, to return a much greater element of control of the fish stocks around our coast to our own Government. That is what I want to see. What I am not convinced about is how on earth we can achieve that objective.
I deal now with decommissioning. In a way, the amount of money that my right hon. Friend squeezed out of the Treasury is a personal embarrassment. He was kind enough to inform me and my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) of the amount when we met him a couple of nights ago. Quite frankly, I was taken aback by the size of what is now available. It will help enormously. Fishermen come to my surgery—one came last Saturday—and say, "We want to leave the industry. We want to take decommissioning." It will help, but it is not the answer to

the fundamental problem that we and the industry will face in future or to what it faced before. We are all aware of the problem. How on earth can we have a policy that conserves stocks and cuts back on effort on a fair basis?
Again, I return to the wretched deal in Brussels. It is not a fair deal for our fishermen, whatever is said about it. No one can convince me for one second that somehow there is some means to ensure that only the 40 Spanish vessels—I wish that there was not a single Spanish vessel—allowed into some of the waters of the box will fish there. I am convinced that more than 40 Spanish vessels will fish from time to time and probably most of the time in that huge area of water.
If there are more vessels, there will be an increase in fishing effort. The pretence that has been put up that somehow there will be no overall increase in fishing effort is laughable. Of course there will be. The Spanish, of course, are notorious for breaking every known rule in the book. They will cheat and cheat again. Of course there will be an increase in effort. I know what will happen. Next year or the year after, the scientists will come forward and say, "We are sorry but the stocks have been under still more pressure. They are reaching danger states and therefore there must be a cut in quota." Although my hon. Friend the Minister of State is correct that, as part of the deal, we still have our full quota, it will be cut and cut again. That follows as surely as night follows day.
That is the prospect for the deal and for the future of the common fisheries policies. It fills me not with apprehension but with utter dismay. I am bitter about what happened in Brussels on the night of 22 December, but if I am bitter, imagine how my constituents who fish from Newlyn feel. Their anger is justifiable.
That leads me to one conclusion, and I shall finish on this note of deep, deep sadness. I applaud what Ministers have done. I am very grateful indeed for the way in which they have tried to accommodate me, my colleagues and other hon. Members, but I am going to vote against the Government tonight. I have come to that conclusion after a lot of thought. There is an illogicality in my voting. I know that it will not change the situation, but at some point individual Members of Parliament must make a stand on an issue. I can only say that, for my part—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It would be normal courtesy in the House to welcome the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to speak in a fisheries debate, but I am afraid that the best that I can say is that it would have been better if he had stayed away, because he said only two things, the first being that abstention is an honourable stance. I should tell him that quite often people who stand in the middle of the road get run down. Secondly, he said that it was a good deal, a marvellous negotiating position, but we could not bring ourselves to vote for it. That is hardly an honourable position for the Minister to take.
We are debating an industry that is in an extremely precarious position. It is bound to be. It is an industry that seeks to harvest a crop, yet there is virtually no control over the stocks that are available. We already have evidence from scientists who say that the cod and haddock are under an even greater threat than we thought. They


now suggest that there may have to be as much as a 30 per cent. cut in the total allowable catch. That is a quick synopsis of what the scientists are saying.
The trouble is that there is no stability. The scientists tell us one year that the stocks are under dire pressure. A couple of years later they come back and say that we can double the quota. Then they say again that the stocks are under dire pressure. The problem is that none of us can afford to ignore their advice. We have the dreadful precedent of what happened in the Canadian cod grounds.
The fishing industry, not unnaturally, does not accept all that the scientists say. I believe that it accepts what they say about cod, but not about haddock. We are in the dreadful position of not knowing where we are on that matter. The industry needs stability, but it does not get it, because the common fisheries policy undergoes crisis after crisis. It is crisis management. We have been asking for extra decommissioning money for years. We have been told that it was not necessary, that it would have to be done gradually. It really is no good the Minister coming to the House tonight and saying that he has found an extra £23 million for decommissioning—

Mr. Wallace: It is £28 million—so far.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise. Perhaps after the principled stand taken by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) it might be a bit more than that by the time that the Minister replies.
The point is that the £28 million is not being offered on any rational basis, but is being offered purely and simply to try to save the Minister's political skin. That is no way to deal with an industry and give it confidence. Its needs should be properly addressed. There was an allusion to an additional quota that the Minister had secured through swap arrangements and so on. It is no good him coming to the House and saying, "I've got a little extra fish for you lads in the north of Ireland, and a little extra fish for you lads somewhere else," on the basis that the only thing that matters in fishing is to stave off defeat in a parliamentary debate. That is what has bedeviled the Government's position.
We all know that it is a simple mathematical formula. I do not pretend to be an Einstein in mathematics, but it is a simple fact that if there are more vessels fishing in an area, the amount of fish caught will go up—the Minister says that that will not happen, and no more fish will be taken out—and, if the catch goes up, the extra amount taken out by the Spanish will have to be taken off the people who traditionally fish there. These are the only two possible consequences of the deal. He must know that.
The fundamental problem is that the common fisheries policy is now dangerously destabilised. The policy was never popular. It will never be popular, and there is no point pretending that it can be. I may not please some people by saying so, but I believe that the call to withdraw from the common fisheries policy is dangerous. It is unrealistic and those who advocate that are peddling a dangerous illusion. Whatever people might think of the past we are locked into the European Union and into the common fisheries policy.
It is no good being nostalgic and looking back to the halcyon days of an abundance of fish. My knowledge of the industry is not that of someone who has gone to sea fishing, but my father was a fisherman. Paradoxically, in the days when there was an abundance of fish in the sea,

the fishing communities were pretty poorly off. The fishing communities were not great thriving areas of richness. Yes, they had a richness of culture and common community, but they were not rolling in money. We must face up to that paradox.
It beggars belief that anyone with any intelligence could support the Government's amendment. It congratulates the Government on having achieved a magnificent deal, yet the Minister could not vote for It has the cheek to refer to 1976, as though that was when the whole problem began. The problem with fishing began when we acceded to the Common Market. The truth of the matter is that the fishing industry was sold down the river when we joined the Common Market. No Government have so far been able to repair that damage.
The Minister says—oddly enough, in view of my strictures of him, as so often happens in speeches, I had written this before he spoke—that we need a radical review of the common fisheries policy. That is true. We do. The trouble is that, in that common fisheries policy review, we do not want the fishing industry being treated as a pawn to be exchanged in European bargaining on events which have no connection with the industry. That is how we landed in this position. The Spanish Prime Minister made threats just a couple of months ago.
In dealing with the Spanish, will the Minister tell us how much of our "fishing fleet" is owned by the Spanish? I have heard figures as high as 23 per cent. I cannot believe that it is as high as that, but it would be interesting to know the exact figure.
The difficulty that we are in is that, for the Prime Minister, Europe is either a great triumph in which he has negotiated everything that is good, or it is a place of damnation in which he wraps round his shoulders the Union Jack and plays the most nationalistic of cards.
If we are to have a proper review of the common fisheries policy, we must recognise that there are poor fishermen in Spain, as there are in other parts of the Community. There are the big boys who travel the world and rape the resources around Africa. One need only speak to the people in Africa about the Spanish to learn what the Spanish do. They could not get away with it in the Irish box and other places where they are being allowed. They come in at night, paint their numbers and names out, fish like hell and go back out again. There is a constant moving of boats. The big boys in the Spanish fleet have nothing to commend them.
A common fisheries policy review cannot be left to the European Commission or to national Governments. I say to fishermen in all parts of the United Kingdom something which I have said to them before and which they must take on board even more: such a review cannot be left just to the fishermen of individual communities.
When one talks to fishermen one discovers that they have a lot more in common with fishermen in other parts of the Community than one might at first think. The fishing industries of the European Community must make common cause with one another so as to get the policy right and to bring about stability. If that is done, there is a possibility that, with a European-wide international convention, with Governments, the Commission and fishing industries considering the industry, we might save the industry. Unless we do something radical and tackle the problem seriously, we will not have to bother about having fishing debates because there will be no industry left.

Mr. Rupert Allason: The sad background to the debate is well known to us all. Half of it is the fact that at the time of the treaty of Spanish accession, the Spanish had a fleet one and a half times the size of the rest of the European fleet put together. Since that time, that fleet has been modernised at Britain's expense. What sickens our fishermen is not just that the Spanish will be plundering British stocks, but that they are doing it with tackle for which we have paid. That is what is so desperately depressing.
On top of that, even more depressing is the fishermen's firmly held belief that they have been betrayed, in particular by the abstention in Brussels. Whatever the long-term tactics are, whatever the advice from the Foreign Office, our fishermen cannot understand why our Ministers are not prepared to back Britain and Britain's fishermen.
The consequences of what is taking place are difficult to predict. But we know that it will be Spanish vessels in British waters. Quota hopping will continue and British stocks will be denuded. The net effect of all that will be the removal of British ships to allow Spanish expansion at our cost.
Decommissioning is something of a side issue because the reality is that, with selective tendering, most of the decommissioning money will favour Scotland and the north-east, because those are the areas of the greatest concentration of fishermen. The corollary of that is that decommissioning will have minimal effect in the south-west.
The amendment in my name and that of 24 of my hon. Friends recommends withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. That may well be impractical. It may well be an exercise in gesture politics. But, quite frankly, our fishing communities want some gesture politics. They want to be able to go back to square one, to start again and to renegotiate the deal that will force on our fishermen's children and their grandchildren a future of redundancy or bankruptcy, all now called decommissioning. They have no future in the fishing industry and it is clear whom they hold responsible for that position.
It may well be that a unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy would be illegal. It may well end up in the European Court. But our fishermen would regard that as at least an opportunity to poke Europe in the eye. That is what they want and I would be happy to accommodate them if that could be achieved.
The fishing communities of Britain are not minor areas that can be set aside as part of the common agricultural policy. Once ships are taken out of our fleet, they are gone for ever. What is so desperately sickening is to see all this British effort being removed at enormous cost to our fishing communities and then to see the Spanish ships moving in on British waters. That is what sticks in the throat of all those who live in the fishing communities, not just the fishermen, but their neighbours and their friends. Ministers should not misunderstand the level of support, particularly in the south-west, that those fishing communities have.
That strikes at the very heart of our relationship with Europe. Are we really to allow the Europeans to walk all over us every single time? Are we really to abstain on every important issue because the Foreign Office has some

long-term objective? If the Spanish were blackmailing us and threatening not to allow expansion of the market on 1 January, I rather wish that we had indulged in precisely the same tactics and said that we would hold up expansion unless we got precisely what was required and what was intended under the original treaty agreement.
Some serious questions have not been answered, and I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not deal with them in his speech. Who will count the 40 Spanish ships? Who will check their catches? Who will inspect the tackle? We can be sure of one thing: it will not be the Spanish.
This will the third vote on the issue that we are discussing. Some of us were given some pretty strong assurances when we were persuaded to vote for additional money for Europe last year. That vote was followed by a second, just before Christmas. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who talked tough: he told us what he would do in Europe, and asked for our support. On that occasion, some of us who were very doubtful agreed to support him, but made it clear that if there was an abstention or he came back with a poor deal—and we urged him to stand up for Britain's interests—a price would have to be paid. That price must be paid tonight.
No one who heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) can have failed to be moved by his determination and his support for his constituents, and I shall be right beside him in the Division Lobby. As I have said, this is our third vote on the issue. I urge the House to take full account of what my hon. Friend said; the Government amendment takes us a vote too far.

Mr. Alex Salmond: There will be some interesting combinations of people in the Division Lobbies tonight. My colleagues in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will certainly support the motion.
Let me first say a word to the Opposition Front Bench. As has been amply demonstrated today, this is a Parliament of minorities, although admittedly some of those minorities are bigger than others. I suggest that, if Opposition Members wish to put real pressure on the Government, the official Opposition should discuss Opposition motions with spokesmen for minority parties: only if a coalition of interests in the House is determined to exert real pressure in regard to a critical issue can a Government come near defeat.
Although the ranks are now thinning in comparison with the beginning of the debate, I think that we have already heard enough to gather that there is real concern in many parts of the House. There is evidence of that from Government Front Benchers. After a campaign lasting at least five years for adequate sums for decommissioning, the amount previously available has been more than doubled. I do not think that fishermen in my constituency will miss the fact that the first tranche was announced just before the declaration of a general election, while the second tranche has been announced at a time when the Government are under fundamental pressure. There may be some advantage in a Parliament composed of minorities for the fishing communities. I must, however, echo the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris): in the context of tonight's debate, that decommissioning money will be seen as a facilitation of the process of getting one British boat out for every Spanish boat that comes in.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he would not succumb to Danegeld in any circumstances. We now have a case of what can only be described as Spanish doubloons. There will be real resentment at the fact that, all of a sudden, £28 million has become available when the Government are under pressure from a number of quarters. I understand from our colleagues in Northern Ireland not only that they have scuppered a cross-border agreement, but that they have 1,000 tonnes of fish coming from somewhere. The night is young; who knows how much more may be offered before the last desperate stage at 10 pm?
There has been some disagreement about exactly when the pass was sold on the common fisheries policy. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that it was sold back in the 1970s, when he had no responsibility for the CFP, but I prefer a more recent version. I do not think that the problem was the treaty allowing accession to Spain and Portugal, which was a very limiting document; in fact, the bulk of Spanish strategy in the past two years of negotiations has been aimed at getting the Spanish out from under the limitations in the treaty. If they had not been concerned about that, they would not have had to doctor article 157—with the help of the Commission—and proceed with negotiations on an argument that, surprisingly enough, is supported only by the Spanish version of the treaty.
It is remarkable that, over the past two years, the United Kingdom Government have allowed the Spanish Government to get away with such a negotiating trick in Europe. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked a good question: we want to know why on earth the United Kingdom allowed the current position to arise. An agreed policy based on limited access, with certain exceptions, is now becoming a policy based on free access with certain exceptions. The Government do not understand the weakness of their negotiating position for the future; even at this stage, they do not realise how they have been outfought and outmanoeuvred by the Spanish Government over the past two years.
There is qualified majority voting, and we do not even have a minority of one; we have a minority of one half, because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food chooses to abstain on vital votes. A former Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the late Frank Maguire, achieved a certain notoriety because he used to transport himself from Fermanagh to abstain here in person. We now have a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who goes to Brussels to abstain in person, such is his belief in the rightness of his negotiating position.
The situation becomes worse as things go on. We do not have an agreement, as the Minister appears unable to tell the House; we have the framework of an agreement. The real negotiations are to take place over the next year. The Spanish are now in an extremely comfortable position: if no agreement is possible in the Council of Ministers, the matter will be decided in the Commission, or it may even be left to national Governments to enforce a policy. It seems to me that the Spanish negotiators have done the difficult job in Europe, and it will be all downhill as far as the Spanish are concerned.
The reality is that the Spanish are now in the Irish box. It is not a concept for the future. Thanks to swaps from France and Belgium, they now have access to vital stocks of cod, haddock, whiting and saithe—limited quantities, admittedly, but they have legal access in areas VI and VII.

No one in the fishing community seriously believes that, now that they have that access, it will be easy to prise the Spanish out of the vital waters west of Scotland.
What has happened to the CFP over the past two years has changed a position of relative stability—the cornerstone of the policy—to one of total instability. No fisherman looking at what has happened during that period can have any confidence in prospects for the future. I find it remarkable that our former circumstances—with the Spanish in a weak position at least in regard to efforts to achieve significant change before the year 2002—have changed to such an extent: the Spanish are now in a commanding position in the negotiations.
The Minister of State returns from negotiation after negotiation, Council meeting after Council meeting, saying what an enormous victory he has achieved. He describes the way in which he has managed extraordinarily radical proposals from the Commission, and says that the fishing communities should celebrate his negotiations over the past two years. I do not understand how, after so many victories at so many Council meetings, we can possibly have arrived at our present position.
I feel that it is very much up to those who have brought the negotiations to so disastrous a pass to explain to the fishermen of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland how they can possibly be protected in the current circumstances. I, for one, am certain that they will not be protected by this Government or this Parliament. I am increasingly of the belief, given the incompetence of the UK negotiations, that those fishermen can no longer be protected within the current framework cf the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Christopher Gill: If time permitted, I would preface my remarks by offering some sympathy to the Minister who has, of course, inherited what is in effect an intractable problem. It is not a problem of his creation, nor was it created by his immediate predecessors. It has not even been created by this Government or this Parliament. The problem results from a mistake made by Parliament in 1972 which, in its anxiety to join the European Economic Community, as it was then called, agreed, among other things, to pool British waters with other countries of the EEC so as to create a common resource of all EEC waters and to accept the policy of equal access.
Subsequently, successive Fisheries Ministers have sought to create a smokescreen to disguise those facts, to bamboozle the House and the nation so as to hide the enormity of what Parliament did in 1972. Unfortunately, the Minister just happens to be in post at this time as the fog begins to clear. It is no longer possible for him to bamboozle the House with talk of multi-annual guidance quotas, total allowable catches, relative stability and the rest of it, because the day of realisation has dawned. The consequences of what was done in 1972 are unfolding, and the Spanish fishing armada is less than 12 months away.
The Government will undoubtedly try to find shelter in conservation measures, decommissioning schemes and perhaps in other measures as yet unknown. The truth is that, in 2002, quotas and TACs and all the other paraphernalia of the past 30 years will be swept away, to be replaced by those principles and policies that


Parliament agreed to in 1972—the establishment of a common resource with equal access for all members of the European Community to enjoy.
What that Parliament in 1972 and subsequent Parliaments could never do was create more fish; on the contrary, successive Parliaments have invited more countries to catch them. If more and more countries join the European Community, two consequences will follow. First, more and more vessels will claim a right to fish in the waters that were once British and, as many hon. Members have said, that can be done only by displacing British fishing vessels. That will happen because of the finite resources of the waters around these islands.
Secondly, the effect on our fish stocks will be disastrous because, instead of the good sense of British fishermen, greed, cheating and fraud will rapidly and savagely take hold and the seas around these islands will be hoovered clean. The House need not take just my word for it, because in a recent press report, that eminent gentleman, Sir Crispin Tickell, and his panel of environmental experts predicted that fish stocks in the North sea and the Irish sea might be on the verge of a collapse similar to that which put 18,000 fishermen in Newfoundland out of work two years ago.
What Parliament did in 1972 was wrong and this Parliament must correct that wrong. I regret, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have not been able to see your way clear to call the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and his 24 hon. Friends. Hon. Members must not vote an important British industry into oblivion, nor must we vote an important and renewable British resource into extinction. The House must consider the consequences of trying to defend the indefensible and of trying to fool all the people all the time, and the downright hypocrisy of saying one thing and meaning or doing something entirely different. For all those reasons, I shall vote against the motion and against the amendment in the full knowledge that one day I shall have to answer to the British electorate.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The betrayal which the agreement to admit the Spanish to our fishing waters represents is merely the outcome of a long story of neglect and indifference by Ministers towards the fishing industry. They have been happy to see that industry restructured by bankruptcy. They have never defended it from Europe and have never been prepared to take a stand in Europe, because some other issue has always been more important. They have never listened to the industry but have always listened to the Commission and to the arguments of other people in Europe.
The industry has not even been served by continuity of Ministers. Ministers with responsibility for fishing are here today and gone tomorrow. There is a constant turnover and there is nobody to whom the industry can relate. The turnover in officials is at about the same rate and the industry has lost faith in the Government and in their administration of fishing.
At the end of all that, fishing has been betrayed by allowing rapacious, cheating Spanish fleets into our waters six years ahead of time. The central question, which the Minister has not answered, is, why did the Government agree in principle to make Spain a full

partner in the CFP six years ahead of time? Why was that done? It is an insane negotiating tactic to agree such a matter in principle without knowing the administrative details, because once the principle is accepted, the details can be forced, and the Spanish have been clever at doing that.
On top of that, the Minister returned to the country and the House in December and claimed a triumph. The Government claimed a wonderful achievement and successful negotiations. In a press release of 21 December, the Government said, "We shall increase the earnings of British fishermen." That is an insult to the intelligence of the industry and the House, and it has culminated now in another offer to try to buy off discontent with a kind of burial grant to get the industry to shut up by taking the money and getting out and dying.
The Government are trying to buy off the dissatisfaction that they have produced by increasing the decommissioning grant. I was delighted to see that that did not buy the votes of the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who is an honourable Member, or for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I hope that it will not buy the votes of the other Members in the south-west. I heard a rumour that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) would be bought off by being made a parliamentary private secretary. In fishing terms, that would be a kind of technical conservation measure. It certainly will not buy off the industry because, desperate as it is for better decommissioning grants—it wanted £75 million in the first place—it does not want the money to be paid, not as Danegeld but as a kind of Spaingeld to buy off its dissatisfaction.
People in the industry are not prepared to be bought out, decommissioned, just to make room for Spanish vessels, which is the Government's intention. The Government are giving £28 million, which they have got to give anyway for other purposes to reduce the British effort under the multi-annual guidance programme. It will not buy off discontent. The industry does not want money on that basis; it wants a proper plan for putting money into supporting and restructuring the fishing industry.
The decommissioning money is only the beginning of the rundown that is to come. The industry has to meet the multi-annual guidance programmes by 1996. The threat is that, if it does not and if, as will be the case, the agreement increases pressure. on the fish stocks in the area where the Spanish will fish, the industry will face a limitation on days at sea imposed not by our Government, who have been defeated on that point, but by the Commission.
It is a bad agreement. I do not want to go into the detail, but I do want to know how it will be policed. Without a massive increase in resources for fishery protection, there is no way in which Spanish vessels can be inspected or we can prevent the practice of secret fish holds or illegal nets. We certainly cannot control landings at Spanish ports, which will not be interested in whether there has been overfishing, whether the wrong species has been caught or whether the fish are too small. The agreement cannot be effectively policed.
The Minister claimed that this is a non-bureaucratic system. However, a Grimsby fishing vessel, such as the Sparkling Line, will have to report in and out eight times just to get to fish in the Irish box. What will be the effect of the swaps given to the Spanish to fish in those waters and does that not disturb relative stability? It establishes a track record for the Spanish in those areas. If it can be


done here, in crucial waters, why cannot it he done in the North sea? If a Spanish vessel is arrested in the North sea, it will have the right of appeal to the European Court, because our courts will not deal with such an arrest. What is to keep the Spanish out of the North sea?
I want to concentrate on the main argument, which is that the fishing industry has been betrayed. It will always be betrayed—that is implicit in the common fisheries policy. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) threw away our fishing claims in his desperate desire to get into the European Community in 1972. We have always negotiated at a disadvantage—whoever else wins, we lose. That is the principle of the CFP. They have got us by the floats—or whatever those little balls are called that keep the nets afloat in the sea. We can always be overruled by majority voting. Every claim can be satisfied in our waters, from our fish. Other countries are not interested in defending those waters or those fish and they cannot be effectively policed.
Policing at the port of landing is inadequate and the shore authorities will always be on the side of their fishing fleets, not on our side. There is no adequate way to police the agreement. Fishing is never perceived to be important enough for the British Government to take an effective stance. Only the nation state can conserve and manage its own fish stocks for the inheritance of future generations of fishermen. That is the basic principle of conservation.
The Minister makes a number of tricky debating points, most of which are wrong. I wish that he would negotiate in Brussels with the vigour that he has shown in the House tonight. Instead, he is supine in the negotiations but vigorous when defending them in the House. Tricky debating points cut no ice with our fishermen. They want out of the whole business. They are fed up with being confused by counter-claims, lies and distortions about the CFP. If the Government say constantly, as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Ministers do, that we cannot do this or that because of Europe, the only outcome will be violence. That is the inevitable result when people cannot get satisfaction from their own politicians and Government. There has been violence over the export of live animals and there will be violence in the fishing ports and grounds because the democratic process is being frustrated.
It is a pity that the learning process about the consequences of European control is concentrated in a Minister who thinks he knows it all. It is a consequence of impotence in the negotiations. What do we get out of the CFP? It is a diet of lies and excuses. There is no effective conservation because other countries are not policed. There is increasing pressure on shrinking stocks. All of that is building up towards the year 2002, when all the derogations and regulations will be swept away and we will be left with the naked reality of a common fisheries policy of equal access to a common stock and a regime dictated by the Commission.
We should begin to take back power and build up our strength, our position and our industry to face that eventuality. We must begin to flex our muscles. Unless Ministers are prepared to accept guidance and work with the industry rather than with the Commission, unless they begin to stand up for fishing rather than hitting it with the double whammy of no support while leaving it exposed to the depredations of the CFP, this betrayal will culminate in disaster in 2002.

Mr. Phil Gallic: I shall begin by quoting from the January 1995 newsletter of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, of which I am proud to be an honorary vice-president. The newsletter states:
Many of our Members are still under the impression that, by hard negotiation, the British Government could have ensured the status quo so far as the fleets of Spain and Portugal were concerned … Unfortunately this was not the case.
The association—as ever—is being pragmatic. I wish that Opposition Members demonstrated similar meritorious trends. Sadly, there has never been any evidence of that since I came to this place, and I see no evidence of it tonight when I read the motion.
The motion tabled in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends is as meaningful as reports of the lost cars of certain Opposition Members, and it does no credit to those who carry the label of Her Majesty's Opposition. If passed, the motion will do nothing for fishermen, other than make a futile gesture towards Europe. The motion as presented represents views that have already been argued by United Kingdom Ministers and their European counterparts, not just this evening, but at the time of the fisheries statement.
Having examined the amendments that have been tabled, I have no doubt that I shall give full support to that tabled by my right hon. Friends. Their amendment does not congratulate the Government on a magnificent deal, as has been stated by some Opposition Members. It congratulates the Government on sustaining in the negotiations exclusion zones that had previously been seen as indefensible.
I contend that my hon. Friends went to Brussels in December with a handful of twos and threes. While they did not turn up trumps, their determination and doggedness achieved more than many had expected before their departure. Once again, they found themselves in a minority of one in a majority voting situation. Once again, the majority could point to the cries of Opposition Members in the United Kingdom, who charge our negotiators with being anti-European for daring to stand against the collective will. Much has been said about the abstention, but unfortunately, without the veto, my hon. Friends' vote would have counted for naught. One does not always vote against items when the points have been won, and I accept the explanations given tonight about that abstention.
My overall view is thank heavens—for the fishermen's sake—that my hon. Friends were carrying the torch, and not people such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), whose double standards were exposed in the House yesterday. I draw the attention of the House to an article in Aberdeen's Evening Express on Monday last, in which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East called on my hon. Friends the Members for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to support the Opposition's inane motion.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East failed to recognise that the agreement keeps the Spanish and Portuguese fishermen out of the North sea, and that is a significant point for my hon. Friends from north-east constituencies. Perhaps, of course, the hon. Gentleman simply wanted to give an inaccurate impression for the media to propagate—a not unfamiliar tactic from Opposition Members.
I note the amendment tabled by 25 of my hon. Friends who are noted, let us say, for their strong anti-European feelings. I respect them, even if I do not always agree with them.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gallie: I only have 10 minutes in which to speak.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has been very unfair.

Mr. Gallie: In that case, I shall give way.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that at no time have any of the 25 Members to whom he refers been anti-European? We are totally opposed to the European Community, which we believe is basically obliging a Conservative Government to impose socialism and abolish democracy.

Mr. Gallie: I accept my hon. Friend's explanation. I perhaps should have said anti-European Community, rather than anti-European.
I recognise that the fishing industry is divided on the suggestion that we withdraw from the CFP. I believe that even if it were practical to follow that course, it would do more harm than good and that our market potential would be damaged. We have heard tonight about the £450 million trade with Spain in particular. The Spanish market is important to my constituents, both fishermen and processors, and it is fundamental to the future prosperity of the fishing industry in the west of Scotland.
I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and I welcome the announcement of further decommissioning funds. I am sure that that announcement will be welcome in my part of the world and across the whole range of fishing interests in the United Kingdom.
The preservation of the Irish box is a success of which I fully approve. I find it hard to understand how any hon. Member can object to it. The exclusion zones for areas VIIa and VIIf are most welcome. The limitation of vessels is much better than anyone could have expected and, as was illustrated by my right hon. Friend the Minister, that was reflected in the Spanish press around Christmas.
It is understandable that our fishermen could hardly celebrate the results of negotiations that brought about further intrusion into our traditional fishing areas. However, if the federalists on the Opposition Benches had been conducting the negotiations, things would have been much worse.
I am concerned that the limitations in the western waters should be maintained. I should like to believe that in areas VIb, VIIc and VIIk the numbers of vessels currently restricted will be maintained far into the future. I am concerned also that the French and the Belgians have already arranged to swap quotas with the Spanish. That gives them access to cod, haddock, whiting and saithe, which will create control problems.
The key to the success of the negotiations is the manner in which they are policed. The problems felt by fishermen are based on a belief that the Spanish will cheat on quotas

and landings. There must be strict control over the measurements of the quotas and the landings, and there must be scrutiny of the landings.
I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about how the detail involved in all this can be achieved. I believe that there is more detail to be put into the negotiations. There will be on-going contact. I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department are the best that Britain has to conduct these negotiations and I look to their success in the future.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) described himself as an honorary vice-president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. I am an honorary president of that association, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I can only assume that the Clyde fishermen have demoted the hon. Member for Ayr.
Recently I spoke to Cecil Flynn of the Clyde Fishermen's Association and the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, as well as some of my constituents who are members of the association. They expressed serious concern about the disastrous deal.
I thought that the Minister offered an offensive observation when he said that Labour Members have a Johnny-come-lately attitude to the well-being of the fishing industry and the fishing community. That is not the case. In what was no doubt a less than brilliant article that I wrote in Tribune 25 years ago—

Mr. George Foulkes: It was very good. I remember it.

Dr. Godman: In that article, I argued that there were too many fishermen chasing too few fish around seas that are the richest in the world for the harvesting of commercially valuable species. I went on to say that the common fisheries policy would need to be altered drastically before I would vote for membership of the European Community. I voted against it because the CFP did not protect our fishermen.
Twenty years ago I wrote a paper for the Scottish government year book, arguing for a common fisheries policy based inter alia on the need to protect our local fishing communities against the international nomadic fishermen who had no history of fishing in our waters, especially the fragile waters such as those around the Western Isles. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has argued the case more recently than I have—he is a little younger.
During a debate on the European Union (Accessions) Act 1994, and in response, I think, to an intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I made the fairly safe prediction that the Norwegian people would vote against membership of the European Union. I said that on the basis of my knowledge of the fishing communities of northern Norway.
I am the son of a fisherman and a fishergirl. I know that all my life, our Administrations have failed our fishing communities and let them down badly because they—the fishing communities and the fishing industry—did not have the clout that, for example, the National Farmers Union had with the Conservatives or that some trade unions had with Labour Governments. That is perhaps


especially true of my trade union—the Transport and General Workers Union—although I hasten to add that I am not sponsored by it. Successive Governments have betrayed the interests of those communities.
My brother is right now fishing off the northern Norwegian coast. He and his family depend on this lousy, rotten common fisheries policy, which needs to be radically revised before 2002. It has to be reformed so that it protects the historic fishing communities from Cornwall to Shetland, including the Western Isles and the entire east coast of Britain, as it has not done hitherto.
Scotland has witnessed the disappearance of its steel industry and the virtual disappearance of its shipbuilding industry. We cannot allow an indigenous industry, which is part of our culture—more so, I would argue, than steel, or shipbuilding for that matter—to slip away. In the long run, we must argue for a dramatic revision of the CFP which, despite the Minister's sneering remarks about so-called regionalisation, must stress the importance of traditional fishing communities. It is possible, within a national framework, to negotiate agreements between traditional communities, such as those in the Western Isles, and the fishermen who come there from elsewhere in Scotland.
Time is short—no doubt Conservative Members are saying, "Fortunately so." In the short term, I have grave concerns about Spanish intervention and the so-called 40 vessels. The Spanish will not stick to their quotas. Has any hon. Member spoken to British crew members on Spanish trawlers? They will list the fiddles that take place when such vessels fish in our waters. My cousin, Len Whur, was the mate on a Spanish trawler and told me about the fiddles undertaken by Spanish fishing operators operating in Vigo and elsewhere. The Spanish will abuse the scheme.
I shall end by asking the Minister a question. I am sure that he agrees that the toughest policing of fishing activity in the north Atlantic is to be found in Norwegian waters. My brother told me recently that the Norwegians boarded his vessel and were on board for several hours. His employer has told him that if he is caught out due to any irregularity, he will be sacked because of the harsh sanctions that the Norwegians impose against violations of their rules. Any Scottish fisherman or any fisherman from the Humber fishing those waters will say that he has to be spot on. Our fisheries protection fleet does a great job, but I do not think that it is a match for the Spanish.
When a Spanish vessel is apprehended and the skipper is convicted in a British court, does the Minister have the power to remove the licence from such a vessel and prevent another Spanish vessel from replacing it? Were we to have that sort of power, we might go some way to diminishing the appalling consequences of the lousy deal negotiated by the Minister who is, admittedly, new to the job of fishing. I am not an expert and I have been around the industry all my life. The Government should have the power to say to any transgressor convicted in a court that he would lose his licence and no replacement vessel would be allowed into those fishing waters. Such policing is now becoming the norm in Canadian, American and Norwegian waters, and we need it here to protect what is left of the once valuable and prolific stocks.
On my first trip to sea I came back after 20 days with 30,000 stone of fish—not due to me. Now those once-rich seas are nearly bare. The industry is almost destroyed and we must introduce, in the short run, policing methods to

frighten the Spanish and others into obeying the laws. Without that, the stocks will decline further. Despite what was said in the Spanish newspapers, the Spanish will laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of our fishermen. In the long term we need a radical revision of the CFP. In the short term we need policing as tough as that in place in Norwegian waters.

Mr. Sebastian Coe: I shall detain the House for only a few short minutes this evening.
This debate, to give it the most charitable gloss, is synthetic. It is fraudulent and mischievous because it is all about gestures. I shall immediately pick up on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—I take gesture politics more seriously than he does. It is serious becasue gesture politics is callous. Hon. Members in both the major Opposition parties and some of my hon. Friends seek to reinforce the illusion prevalent in fishing communities that my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State did anything but go two thirds of the way towards a negotiated package in Brussels before Christmas—which, although not ideal, they could have improved on in some way.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has moved a motion that plays second fiddle to scare stories about through ticketing from a party whose leadership has consistently ascribed little or no status to fishing as an industry that affects the long-term livelihood of those communities who depend on that way of life. I absolve the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of guilt in the matter.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will need no reminding this evening—it is possible that some of his colleagues will—of what happened between 1974 and 1979 when he was responsible for such matters. In contrast to the cheap currency and soundbites of Opposition rhetoric today, the Labour Government of that period achieved no change to any of the mechanisms in place then, not even at the margins. They did not even have the excuse of qualified majority voting to fall back on. It is intellectually fraudulent to suggest that Labour would or could have fared any better around that pre-Christmas table than my right hon. Friend the Minister.
In the cold light of day, we know that it was not a path on which either of the Opposition parties would have set foot. In 1985, the Labour party—again, I absolve the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—supported the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Community. Knowing the full implications of that decision, it hid from the reality and palmed off the fishing communities. The Labour party failed to frame one policy or even mention fishing in its election manifesto of 1992. The issue was scrubbed from its European manifesto this year and it merits only a few lines in the Labour party's latest countryside policy paper entitled "In Trust for Tomorrow". Care, commitment and concern—tell me.
The Liberal party shared in the sclerosis of ideas between 1974 and 1979 by way of the shabby Lib-Lab pact. Its leader, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), is committed to getting rid of our national veto and stripping all protection from those communities for which the Liberals shed their crocodile tears.
That is what lies behind the Opposition's motion tonight—not policies intellectually argued and rigorously applied but cheap gestures which demean this Chamber and insult the intelligence of fishing communities the length and breadth of the Union.
I am even less prepared to take lectures from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in this Chamber or to listen to the waterfall of rubbish that she speaks on the subject elsewhere. I suggest that her time would be spent more fruitfully thumbing nervously through local authority planning guidelines.
The Minister should be in no doubt about the concern and understandable frustration which we feel at the hand of cards—our wretched history and the collective memory, often conveniently dimmed in this place—that the Minister took to Brussels. Although I recognise his notable achievements and the compromises reached during the negotiations, I regret that—even in the full knowledge of defeat—he did not vote against access by Spanish vessels to Cornish waters.
I am relieved and very pleased about the extra money allocated for decommissioning which my right hon. Friend has announced tonight. It more than meets the expectations of fishing organisations and it is a sensible response to many of the underlying issues that have been well discussed in this place on other occasions.
The truth is that this debate is about visiting the historic sins of the parents on the children. Those parents signed away many of our traditional fishing rights, either in ignorance or by collusion. It is those parents—many of whom are on the Opposition Benches tonight—who have much to answer for. I cannot support their motion.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a few questions on behalf of fishermen in my constituency. Many details of the deal are still unclear, and we do not know how badly it will impact on many sectors of the fishing industry on the west coast of Scotland. However, the fishermen have good reason to fear that its effects will be very grim indeed.
In his opening remarks, the Minister made great play of the fact that the Spanish fleet has a very small proportion of the fishing quotas available on the west coast— he mentioned the figure of 2 per cent. However, that does not take into account the latest manoeuvres within the French and Belgian industries which have made significant quota swaps with the Spanish. The importance of that is not just that the total owned by the Spanish has been increased but that many of the boats which otherwise would have no quotas whatsoever and no right to fish will now have some nominal quota and, therefore, can engage in the duplicitous practices for which the Spanish are notorious.
Will the Minister also spend a little time on the steep increase in catches recorded by Spanish flag of convenience vessels fishing against the British quota? In species such as nephrops, monkfish and plaice and all total allowable catch species, foreign landings have increased by between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent. It is clear, therefore, that flag of convenience vessels are biting deeper into British quotas. That causes great concern,

particularly given the context of Spanish access, and it is important that the Minister says something about those increases.
Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friends on having called the debate. It is notable that it was not the Government who found time for such an important debate; my hon. Friends pushed forward the interests of British fishermen and are defending them vigorously.

Mr. Elliot Morley: We have had an important debate tonight which has demonstrated many of the problems that the fishing industry faces at the present time. Many of those problems go back to the early negotiation of the Common Market and demonstrate that, although the Government may point to failures in the past, they have had 16 years to do something about them.
We have had 16 years of policy failure in fishing—in particular, the failure of the original CFP agreement in 1983. That agreement sold out our fishing industry and left open the door of opportunity exploited by the Spanish and Portuguese in the recent accession agreements.
The great tragedy is that the CFP has been severely discredited, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out. There is a growing movement demanding the radical and unrealistic unilateral termination of the CFP, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) mentioned. It has to be recognised, however, that, given the discontent within the industry, calls to withdraw from the CFP are hardly surprising. It is clear that there is a need for urgent action to be taken to rectify the current position. That is the main thrust of our motion tonight and it is deadly serious.
It is an insult to the fishing industry for the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) to describe the debate as bogus. The fishing industry wanted the issue debated. The Government could have made a statement and provided an opportunity for a debate, but the Opposition have taken the matter so seriously that we have devoted one of our Supply days to it.
Those of us who represent the fishing industry and ports know the strength of feeling on this issue and the risk that is posed to sustainable management by discrediting our position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) pointed out. Not only is the CFP discredited, but all that is positive about the European ideal is also discredited when people have no confidence in agreements from Brussels.
Whatever gloss the Minister may put on it, Spanish boats are fishing in United Kingdom waters and establishing track records where they had no previous entitlement. At the same time, the British fleet faces a reduction through decommissioning.
In a letter recently, the Minister of State reassured fishermen that there would be no new measures to control efforts as long as effort on fish stocks did not increase in the area and in the former Spanish box. Is that really likely, with the admission of an extra 40 Spanish vessels in the Irish box?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) pointed out, the Spanish have a poor record in abiding by rules. There is also need for effective enforcement, which does not appear in the new deal, but to suggest that there will be no increase in effort


by allowing the Spanish in is about as likely as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) eloping with Jacques Delors and opening a bijou French restaurant in the Dordogne. According to the Minister, the deal was apparently approved by Lord Tebbit. It seems that the Government must meet a new standard—the Tebbit test—before a deal may be regarded as acceptable. It makes one wonder who makes foreign policy in the Conservative party.
We are serious when we ask for a review of the CFP. There will be an opportunity in 2002, or even sooner—as the right hon. Gentleman interestingly said. Perhaps the Minister of State will expand on that comment. Will there be an early opportunity to review the policy? There is no reason why Britain cannot renegotiate a better deal for its fishing industry. The Norwegians, led by their fisheries Minister, Mr. Olsen, secured a much better deal as part of accession negotiations. Following its referendum, Norway is not to pursue membership of the EU, but it secured a better deal than the British industry when this country joined the CFP in 1983—of course, Mr. Olsen was a Labour fisheries Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman stated that much of the deal is still to come and to be agreed. We would like more details. Will the Minister confirm that the concept of the standard vessel measurement is incorporated in the deal? How does it compare with our current measurement of vessel capacity units in calculating effort? More importantly, will the Minister comment on whether the deal leaves the door open for standard vessel days to be introduced as a control measure? We would welcome his comments also on remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman about introducing market-driven controls. Are the Government considering introducing individual transferable quotas on the New Zealand model?
We welcome the extra £28 million to boost the decommissioning scheme which was announced tonight. It is regrettable that such announcements are forced from the Government by an Opposition motion and threats from Conservative Back Benchers. I calculate that 27 Government Members signed amendments to our motion, which means more than £1 million per wavering voter—that puts £1,000 a question in the shade. Perhaps that should be declared to the Nolan committee. A few words have also been said to our Ulster friends as part of the Government's package of measures.
Decommissioning is a serious issue. It is an important part of effort control and deals with overcapacity. Far from there being no policy statement in our manifesto, in 1992 we devoted a specific policy statement to the matter, "Marine Harvest: Labour's Policy for a sustainable Fishing Industry."

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): It was produced on a word processor.

Mr. Morley: I do not deny it. It was produced on a rather cheap word processor, but in 1992 the Labour party did not have the benefit of donations from dodgy foreign millionaires. I admit that our materials were not quite up to the standard of the Conservative party. Nevertheless, some of the policies presented in that document have been adopted by the Government.
We are moving towards a more realistic and effective decommissioning scheme, but it has been a slow process. It would have been better for the industry if the money

had been front loaded and made available three years ago rather than now. Will the Minister confirm that £8 million of the £28 million announced tonight is from the initial scheme?

Mr. Jack: indicated dissent.

Mr. Morley: The Minister says not, which I accept. However, it is worth comparing the scheme with others on which the Government have spent money, such as rail privatisation. Having lavished £600 million on consultancy fees, the Government could have paid fishermen to stay at home and order their fish from Harrods, in addition to financing a more effective decommissioning scheme.
The hon. Members for St. Ives and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) have accepted our motion, and we agree with the main points of their amendment; we think them sensible. We are only sorry that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne did not add his name to their amendment, but he can still join those of his hon. Friends—and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—who have said that they intend to vote with us tonight.
The common fisheries policy is facing a crisis. We need to demonstrate to the industry that we share its concerns and recognise its problems, which fishermen feel are beyond their control. We must also show that this country will stand up for its industry in the same way as the Spanish— whatever one might say about them—have done in skilfully negotiating on behalf of their country. We should be able to get deals for our fishermen in the same way as the Norwegians have been capable of getting deals for theirs. We need a Government who are prepared to stand up for the industry in the same way as other Governments do for theirs.
Some Conservative Members have shown principle and have shown concern for the fishing communities that they represent. A common thread running through this debate has been the degree of concern felt for our fishing industry. That is why we should all take it seriously.
All Conservative Members who are worried about the impact of the CFP, and about how this deal will affect our industry, all Conservative Members who want to stand up for the British fishing industry and to give it a sustainable future, should vote with us in the Lobby tonight.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): This has been a debate of powerfully expressed views, of strong emotions and—from many Conservative Members—of sound common sense. I pay tribute first to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who made a thoughtful and considered speech. I defend him against the cheap jibe from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who accused my hon. Friend of allowing his opinions to be bought by the Government My hon. Friend has served with distinction for the past. six months as a parliamentary private secretary and he has shown more concern for his constituents in the fishing industry than have many Opposition Members for theirs.
My hon. Friend's excellent and realistic speech brought a note of realism to our consideration of these matters. His was an honest statement; he spoke of the difficulties experienced by many in the south-west, and I listened carefully to what he had to say.
Whatever the final arrangements for Spain and Portugal may be, playing by the rules will clearly be central to them. We take that very seriously. Once the final details are settled, I assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I will examine all the implications for enforcement. If the common fisheries policy is to have real credibility and be seen to work, enforcement must be effective. There will be no no-go areas in the Community in respect of the inspection of Spanish vessels, to ensure that they play by the rules.
I have already sent an invitation to the new fishing Commissioner, asking her to the United Kingdom for talks. I hope to persuade her to come and meet some real fishermen from the south-west of England. When she comes, I shall put enforcement at the top of my agenda, because it is central to confidence in these policies.
By contrast with my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who dealt with real issues in the real world, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked us yet another list of questions. Besides the importance of enforcement, the other obvious factor in this debate has been the total lack of any clearly stated policy on fishing from the Opposition parties.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Jack: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that I have been generous in the past, but this time I have a great deal of information with which to educate him on the subject of fisheries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) made a gritty speech. He was right—[Interruption.] It was certainly a deal stronger in its content and better thought out than some of the pap that we heard from Opposition Members. My hon. Friend was right in emphasising what I can describe only as one of the most shambolic performances that I have ever heard from an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). I shall return to the hon. Gentleman for special treatment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr was right to emphasise the importance to all our fishermen—especially those in the west country—of the market in Spain, France and wider Europe. If we are to have the benefits of a common market and a common fisheries policy, there must be a two-way process. We have the gains that come from that market and that policy. Those who advocate that we should leave the CFP set out a false agenda and put at risk the very market that gives a livelihood to our fishermen throughout the land.
My hon. Friend mentioned enforcement. I hope that he takes assurance from what I have said about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) made a thoughtful and moving speech. I take the opportunity of thanking him for his personal kindness and courtesy, which he has demonstrated throughout in dealing with me over these issues. It is—[Interruption.] The ribald laughter of Opposition Members does a great disservice to my hon. Friend, who has laboured long with the difficulties of his constituents and the issues now before us.
I have put to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives on many occasions the arguments that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have deployed—I think with

skill—in negotiations in Europe. My hon. Friend knows only too well the difficulties that we face. He set us a challenge, and I responded to it. He asked us whether we could keep the Spanish out of the North sea, the Bristol channel and the Celtic sea. My right hon. Friend, after tremendously complex negotiations, achieved two of the three targets.
My hon. Friend asked us whether we could restrict the activities of Spain in the remainder of the Irish box. We did. We restricted it to 40 vessels. It is relevant to refer to the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture on fishing, which was published in August 1993. In its report, the Committee drew the attention of the House to the fact that before Spain joined the Common Market it fished in the western waters from which it has since been barred with a fleet of 460 vessels. When Spain joined the Community, it was constrained to not 460 vessels but a basic list of about 300. Of that list, only 150 could fish at any one time.
The negotiations that my right hon. Friend and I conducted have restricted Spain to 40 vessels in the same area. To answer the question, "What happens in the other area?", though the Spanish fishing effort that can be deployed will have to be in ratio to the catch quotas that are available in the areas, the idea that there will be a limitless Spanish free-for-all is not possible as a result of the negotiations. That is what I say to those who denigrate the CFP.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has stood on the quayside at Newlyn, no doubt, and agonised with the fishermen about the problems that we have been discussing. I hope that even in these last minutes of the debate my hon. Friend will understand that we negotiated with the needs of the fishermen in his constituency and of all the fishermen of the United Kingdom in mind in our deliberations at Brussels. We fought extremely hard to the end. There is still work to do. Whatever my hon. Friend decides to do at the end of the day, I can assure him that we shall continue to be dedicated to the interests of west country fishermen and of others in our proceedings.

Dr. Michael Clark: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jack: Not for the moment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) have associated themselves with emotional speeches over whether they thought the CFP had served the country well and whether we have had protection from it. I hope that in my remarks, with particular reference to the number of Spanish vessels, my hon. Friends will see quite clearly that the common fisheries policy has provided a defence for the interests of our fishermen.
Let us examine for a moment the situation if we did not have that policy—the dream world of a return to the 200-mile limit, of little no entry signs at the front of the English channel or half way out in the Irish sea. That would not stop anybody. There would also have to be negotiations with others who have traditional rights to fish in those waters. What power would we have to stop them? None. It is an illusion, a false promise. For the hon. Member for Great Grimsby to associate himself with such an argument does his interest in the fishing industry a grave disservice.
My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the west country know, as do other Conservative Members, that we have responded to the needs of the fishing industry. Many hon. Members have talked about the fishermen's livelihood. My right hon. Friend, in winning the additional resources for decommissioning, has made it possible to bring into better balance the catching capacity of our fleets with the possibilities presented to them, so that those with old vessels and those who wish to retire from the industry can take their capacity out with money in their pockets and leave for the rest of the fishermen a livelihood to enjoy for the future. That is true investment in the future of the fishing industry and shows which party in the House has the interests of the industry at heart.
I am also aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Ludlow are concerned about rule breaking. I give them the assurance that I and my right hon. Friend will make it one of our principal priorities to ensure that the common fisheries policy is properly and fully enforced. I share their concerns. I cannot argue to the House that it is a policy with credibility unless it can be enforced with rigour, transparency and openness. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay that, if he had had a chance to examine the achievement of the negotiation, he would know that we secured from the Commission the promise of a report for the first time to shine a light of transparency into the activity of Community inspectors. We will know where they go and, more importantly, where they do not go, and challenge it.

Dr. Michael Clark: My hon. Friend is talking about Spain obeying rules. Does he recall that, in the previous debate, I reminded him that Spain had tried to link the extension of the European Community to access to the Irish box? I suggested to him that we should link access to the Irish box to Spain behaving properly with regard to the Gibraltar border. Did he take that up with the Foreign Secretary? Was it discussed with Spain? Will Spain obey the rules here, too?

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is aware of my hon. Friend's point. I have already rechecked the situation in case my hon. Friend, having studied the debate last time, raised it again. He will understand that it is not directly a debate about foreign affairs, but I understand the point that he makes about linkage. Indeed, the Government are maintaining pressure on the Spanish to reduce the inconvenience caused on the border by the overzealous border controls to which my hon. Friend refers. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that issue with his counterpart on 19 December and those secondary restrictions have now been lifted. I shall emphasise that point again to my right hon. Friend.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow—I hope that he is listening—that as a result of my right hon. Friend's negotiations, the armada that he saw in his mind's eye will not be able to enter the waters off our western shores. We stopped it; we stopped the Spanish going into the Irish sea; we stopped them going into the English channel. We restricted them to 40 in the remainder of the Irish box and we will constrain, by our

negotiation, the effort of Spain in the remainder of that water. They will be limited. There will be no free-for-all on that particular matter.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack: No. The hon. Gentleman has had more than adequate time and his hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) had all my intervention time in the previous debate.
I shall now deal with the speech by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. It shows that with no policy the Labour party is a divided party on Europe and on the common fisheries policy. At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent with his own line and, unlike the Opposition Front-Bench Members, has some ideas. I do not agree with those ideas. His is an anti-Community stance. He makes no secret of that. The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement. I say to him and other hon. Members that to suggest in any way that an easy solution to the problems is to come out of the common fisheries policy is a false agenda. We are signatories to the European Union. We cannot leave the common fisheries policy. It is better that we work within it for change.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The argument is simply that unless Ministers have the guts to stand up for Britain and fight for a better deal, the fishing industry will turn against the common fisheries policy, as is shown by the rising strength of Save Britain's Fish throughout Britain.

Mr. Jack: If you are peddling the Save Britain's Fish line, you are doing a grave disservice to Britain's fishermen. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: I am not calling order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to me personally. I am sure he means the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is doing a grave disservice to the British fishing industry if he is peddling that particular line. The policy that he advocates is a non-starter. He would do far better to turn his intellectual fire power on to reform, joining in with ideas for the working party which my right hon. Friend has established. His line is clearly incompatible with that of his Front-Bench spokesmen. I do not know whether they have a line, but it is incompatible with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang).
I remind the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that on 10 December 1985 the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), said:
We welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal. It is the right move for the Community and for Spain and Portugal. We welcome. it because we recognise the merits of those two new democracies joining the rest of Europe and facing Europe's problems with us. The Opposition do not welcome accession blindly, ignorantly or oblivious of the difficulties and anxieties."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 883.]
The Opposition knew what they were letting themselves in for and they cannot run away from those responsibilities now. They had the opportunity to change the common fisheries policy.
On 15 July 1982, the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now Lord Walker, said:
I wish to remind the Opposition that they decided when they renegotiated the terms of our entry they did not wish to renegotiate the terms on fishing."—[Official Report, 15 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 1186.]
That is the policy that we are following. Lord Walker negotiated improvements in the common fisheries policy with no help from Opposition Members.
I come now to remarks made by the hon. Gentleman and others on a technical question about the North sea. I owe the hon. Gentleman an answer on that. He asked whether swaps could allow the Spanish into that area. Theoretically, Spain could swap, but she could not fish those quotas as she has no right of access to the North sea. That is a crucial part of the agreement. My right hon. Friend secured an absolute barrier to Spain coming into the North sea. There is no mention of that in the Opposition's motion.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East gave a shambolic performance. It contained no positive ideas. We are none the wiser about the Opposition's fishing policy. The hon. Gentleman showed scant knowledge of what happened in the negotiation. He asked about allies. We had nearly every member state on our side in the September Fisheries Council in order to turn back the Commission's over-bureaucratic and complex proposals.
I remind the hon. Gentleman what Labour Members of the European Parliament did to that proposal. When it came to the vote in the European Parliament for the over-complex, bureaucratic system of standard vessel days, about which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe asked, Labour Members of the European Parliament voted in favour of that proposal, which would have put an unacceptable burden on our fishing industry. They voted against proposals agreed by his own representatives in the European Parliament's fishing committee to modify those proposals to the benefit of the United Kingdom's fishermen.
That shows the duplicity of and divide in the Labour party and the opportunism of its approach to the common fisheries policy. We worked hard to get the necessary alliances together in order to fight for and win the concessions that we did. We kept Spain out of the North sea, the Irish sea and the Bristol channel and we limited Spanish vessels.
Tonight is not the night for my hon. Friends to give smug satisfaction to socialists whose parliamentary predecessors did nothing properly to safeguard the future of the common fisheries policy for the United Kingdom.
I have mentioned the European Parliament. Tonight is not the night to vote for the "Brussels knows best" party, which would have no stomach for the fight for our fishermen. It was Conservatives who stopped the Spanish free-for-all; it was Conservatives who brought extra resources to the common fisheries policy; it is Conservatives who are fighting for an industry of brave men with proud traditions. Conservative Members have a proud tradition of fighting socialism: let us do that in the Lobby tonight.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes294, Noes312.

Question accordingly negatived.

question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 301

Division No. 41]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Congdon, David


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ancram, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Aspinwall, Jack
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkins, Robert
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Delvin, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Dicks, Terry


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bates, Michael
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant Sir Anthony


Beresford, Sir Paul
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Elletson, Harold


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowis, John
Evennett, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Faber, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Fabricant Michael


Brazier, Julian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bright Sir Graham
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fishbum, Dudley


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forman, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butcher, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butler, Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butterfill, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
French, Douglas


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Gale, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gallie, Phil


Churchill, Mr
Gardiner, Sir George


Clappison, James
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Garnier, Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Gillan, Cheryl


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Coe, Sebastian
Goodson-Wckes, Dr Charles


Colvin, Michael
Gorst Sir John






Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Hany (Ealing N)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Merchant Piers


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mills, Iain


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Haselhurst Alan
Moate, Sir Roger


Hawkins, Nick
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hawksley, Warren
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, Jerry
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heald, Oliver
Moss, Malcolm


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Hendry, Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Norris, Steve


Horam, John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Page, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Paice, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pickles, Eric


Jack, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jenkin, Bernard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powel, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jones, Robert B (Hertfdshr)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Richards, Rod


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Robathan, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts,. Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knapman, Roger
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knox, Sir David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sackville, Tom


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Scott Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luff, Peter
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Lyell. Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


MacKay, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Madel, Sir David
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat Iain


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John





Stephen, Michael
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Stewart, Allan
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Streeter, Gary
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sykes, John
Waterson, Nigel


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Thomason, Roy
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Willetts, David


Thurnham, Peter
Wilshire, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Tredinnick, David
Wood, Timothy


Trend, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Twinn, Dr Ian



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clarke, Tom (Monkldands W)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coffey, Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Corston, Jean


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cox, Tom


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cummings, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dalis, Cynog


Bermingham, Gerald
Dalyell, Tam


Berry, Roger
Darling, Alistair


Betts, Clive
Davidson, Ian


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Blunkett, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Boyes, Roland
Denham, John


Bradley, Keith
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Don


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Byers, Stephen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Caborn, Richard
Eagle, Ms Angela


Callaghan, Jim
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Canavan, Dennis
Fatchett Derek


Cann, Jamie
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Fisher, Mark


Chidgey, David
Flynn, Paul


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Church, Judith
Foster, Don (Bath)


Clapham, Michael
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fraser, John






Fyfe, Maria
McAllion, John


Galbraith, Sam
McAvoy, Thomas


Galloway, George
McCartney, Ian


Gapes, Mike
McCrea, The Reverend William


George, Bruce
Macdonald, Calum


Gerrard, Neil
McFall.John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McGrady, Eddie


Gill, Christopher
McKelvey, William


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McLeish, Henry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maclennan, Robert


Gordon, Mildred
McMaster, Gordon


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNamara, Kevin


Graham, Thomas
MacShane, Denis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Madden, Max


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maddock, Diana


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Alice


Gunnell, John
Mallon, Seamus


Hain, Peter
Mandelson, Peter


Hall, Mike
Marek, Dr John


Hanson, David
Marlow, Tony


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Harris, David
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Harvey, Nick
Martlew, Eric


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Maxton, John


Henderson, Doug
Meacher, Michael


Hendron, Dr Joe
Meale, Alan


Heppell, John
Michael, Alun


Hill. Keith (Streatham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hodge, Margaret
Milburn, Alan


Hoey, Kate
Miller, Andrew


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Home Robertson, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hood, Jimmy
Morgan, Rhodri


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoyle, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mullin, Chris


Hume, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Ingram, Adam
O'Hara, Edward


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
O'Neill, Martin


Jamieson, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Janner, Greville
Patchett, Terry


Johnston, Sir Russell
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jowell, Tessa
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keen, Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Redmond, Martin


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Rendel, David


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Litherland, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rogers, Allan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooker, Jeff





Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rowlands, Ted
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Salmond, Alex
Tyler, Paul


Sedgemore, Brian
Vaz, Keith


Sheerman, Barry
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wallace, James


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walley, Joan


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Short, Clare
Wareing, Robert N


Simpson, Alan
Watson, Mike


Skinner Dennis
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wigley, Dafydd


Snape, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Brian


Spellar, John
Winnick, David


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wise, Audrey


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Stevenson, George
Wray, Jimmy


Stott, Roger
Wright Dr Tony


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Straw, Jack



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Dennis Turner.


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the agreement of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, congratulates the Government on securing the exclusion of Spanish fishing vessels from the Irish Sea and the Bristol Channel, the limiting of Spanish fishing within the rest of the Irish Box to 40 vessels simultaneously and the inclusion of special restrictions on Spanish vessels within the Box West of Scotland; notes that the agreement does not call into question the continued exclusion of Spanish vessels from the North Sea and the principle of relative stability; recognises this outcome represents a major improvement for United Kingdom fishermen compared to the original Commission proposals, the negotiation of which was made more difficult by the failure to win Hague Preferences for South West English fishing communities in 1976; welcomes the undertaking the Government secured from the Commission to provide annual reports on the findings of Commission Fisheries Inspectors; notes the Government's current annual expenditure of some £25 million on fisheries enforcement and welcomes the Government's commitment to ensure effective policing of the agreement; welcomes the Government's success in extending the benefits of the EC's structural programmes to areas of the United Kingdom dependent on fishing; notes that the Government are also spending some £17 million per annum on fisheries research and monitoring and some £5 million per annum on other forms of assistance to the fisheries sector; notes the Government's current substantial programme of decommissioning expenditure; and welcomes its commitment to provide further programmes in 1996–97 and 1997–98.

James Wilkinson

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. David Hinchliffe: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving please do so quietly? We still have business to conduct in the Chamber.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise some detailed concerns about the case of James Wilkinson, a three-year-old boy in my constituency who suffers from a rare syndrome termed Ondine's syndrome. As well as drawing the attention of the House to some specific problems relating to the funding of James's care, I want to press the Minister over my concern about the way in which proposed changes to the funding of the Wakefield health authority will impact on James's personal situation and those of other constituents with health problems.
James was born on 20 April 1992. He was Ann and Gary Wilkinson's first child. He weighed 61b 13oz at birth and appeared, at first, to be normal and healthy, except for a slight problem with his breathing. Within minutes of his birth he was rushed into intensive care and, despite rigorous tests, his condition baffled doctors for some considerable time.
James was transferred from maternity care in Wakefield to the Clarendon wing of Leeds general infirmary and, subsequently, to the North Staffordshire general hospital in Stoke-on-Trent for highly specialised care. He was diagnosed as suffering from Ondine's syndrome, a condition which affects only a handful of people—I believe about eight—in the whole of Britain. Ondine's syndrome is characterised by hyperventilation and shallow or slow breathing during sleep. It is believed to be caused by an abnormality in the. automatic control of respiration. The respiration centre does not react adequately to carbon dioxide levels in the blood in the way that is necessary to maintain normal breathing. It has been suggested that this may be due to lesions of the high spinal chord or brain stem. The condition is named after Ondine, a character in Greek mythology who allegedly caused a mortal who loved her to sleep for ever.
James Wilkinson spent the first 18 months of his life in hospital. His parents travelled a round trip of 200 miles to see him each weekend before he was able to return to Yorkshire. They had to adjust to a regime of monitoring his condition 24 hours a day. When he became weary or fell asleep he was attached to a ventilation mask which maintained his breathing.
Mrs. Wilkinson told me recently that, shortly after James's diagnosis, she was advised by another family facing the same tragic problem to seek the support of her Member of Parliament in the anticipated struggles to enable James to be brought up in as normal an environment as possible in the family home. She arid her husband contacted my constituency office during summer 1992, and my constituency researcher and I have been involved in making representations on their behalf, particularly with regard to James's care at home, since that time.
I know that Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson were very frustrated by the length of time that it took to secure an adequate package of care for James at home. They went to the extent of writing to the Secretary of State for Health about their concerns. I do not want to dwell on that point, other than to say that I think that the family were rightly aggrieved at the way in which they saw James becoming institutionalised because of inability to arrange his domiciliary care.
The Minister will be aware that I also wrote to his Department on 20 July 1993 outlining my concerns on that point. No doubt he will have seen a copy of the reply that I received, dated 31 July 1993, from the then Minister for Health, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney).
James eventually went home to his family on 5 October 1993, the ventilation equipment necessary for his care having been installed in an extension of the Wilkinson's house constructed to meet his specific needs. The current care package involves 24-hour nursing cover, and the family also have the support of a home carer from the local authority social services department for six hours each week.
Last summer, Wakefield health authority invited me to attend a discussion about James's case. I was made aware of the difficulties that the authority faces in funding, on an annual basis, the care that he requires. As a means of possibly reducing costs, it was suggested that Mrs. Wilkinson might undertake some of the monitoring of James's condition which was carried out by nurses, with social services caring for James's sister, Harriet, who I believe is about two years old.
The family—rightly, in my view—resisted that proposal. Mrs. Wilkinson is firmly of the opinion that her daughter should be cared for by her own parents and not by a substitute. Their views on the matter were endorsed by the family's general practitioner, Dr Brain, in a letter to me dated 29 September 1994. Nevertheless, I appreciate the difficulties faced by the Wakefield health authority, which finds its budgetary arrangements skewed because of the resourcing required to meet one person's needs. I ask the Minister to consider that point tonight because his response in a letter to me in November, following my written representations on the issue, did riot address in any way the difficulties faced both by the Wilkinson family and by Wakefield health care.
I pay a sincere tribute tonight to Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson and to their wider family for the care that they have given James in such tragic circumstances. It is completely unacceptable that they should feel constantly subject to the possibility of a reduced package of care because Wakefield health care's budgetary difficulties in funding such care are not taken into account by the Government in the allocation of resources.
It cost Wakefield health authority nearly £260,000 for James's care as an in-patient at the North Staffordshire hospital and the Leeds general infirmary and a further £147,000 for in-patient care and home care during the last financial year. Those figures do not include equipment costs, which are in the region of £32,500.
It costs Wakefield health authority around £102,000 per annum to fund James's care at home. Wakefield health authority pointed out to me that, if used in another way, that funding could purchase 17 coronary artery bypass grafts, 45 hip replacements or 132 cataract operations. In other words, the health needs of a significant number of


my constituents and, indeed, yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are not being met because the Government's allocation of funds to Wakefield health care do not take into account the manner in which James's care skews its existing budget.
I want to make absolutely clear, knowing Wakefield people as well as I do—I was born in Wakefield and have lived there all my life—that I doubt whether there is one person in Wakefield whose health needs might otherwise be met, who would resent those resources being spent on James's care, but I suspect that many of them will feel as I do that it is wrong that such expenditure is not taken into account by the Government in the calculation of local funding requirements.
Last April, Wakefield community health council wrote to local Members of Parliament for the Wakefield district suggesting that central funding might be ring-fenced to cope with such special cases from a national point of view. At a meeting on Monday this week, council members agreed to table a motion to the annual conference of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales later this year urging the Department of Health to fund from a central source the extra resources that are required to meet the cost of extensive funding for individual patients needing specialised care. The motion points out that this position will become even more uncertain with the impact of total purchasing by GP fundholders.
Before I conclude, there is another factor with a bearing on James Wilkinson's case that I want to raise with the Minister. I have given him notice of the points that I intend to raise tonight. As he will know, on 21 October last year, the national health service executive published new guidance on the distribution of resources in the national health service, following a review of the methodology of the allocation of revenue funding.
At its December meeting, Wakefield health authority considered a paper from its director of finance and information on the outcome of the review in respect of its impact on the local budget. The paper suggested that the new formula changed the district health authority's distance from its target allocation quite dramatically, as it is allegedly overfunded at present by some £7 million per annum. The 4.9 per cent. variance is the biggest percentage variance in the new Northern and Yorkshire region, and is obviously of great concern in terms of its implications for funding the future care of patients such as James Wilkinson.
I will not expand on matters beyond the scope of this debate, but I fear that the 1991 consensus on which the new formula is based pre-dates many of the employment and health implications of the coal closure programme that devastated Wakefield. You more than anybody, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware of the point that I am making. I fear also that the population age profile showing that Wakefield has a relatively small population of elderly people fails to take account of the fact that local demand for health care shows that the total requirement for resources has not reduced. The same amount of health care is being used over a shorter life span.
The implications of those changes add to existing pressure on funding the current care package needed by James Wilkinson and his family. The Government must address the understandable anxieties of the Wilkinson family and of Wakefield health authority.
It would be wrong not to express on behalf of the Wilkinson family their thanks to all those who have supported them since James was born. They are particularly grateful to the current nursing team and to the home carer from a local authority social services department who visits every week. The family are also most appreciative of the support of their general practitioner, Dr. Brain, and of colleagues from the same practise.
The Wilkinson family are bravely facing up to an extremely difficult situation. They would welcome assurance that the support that they will need in future will not be threatened because Wakefield health authority's specific funding problems have not been taken into account by the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on securing this Adjournment debate on Ondine's syndrome and the case of James Wilkinson. I listened with great interest to his remarks. Thankfully, Ondine's syndrome is a rare condition, but I appreciate the support that the hon. Gentleman has given the Wilkinson family and the concern that he feels. I know that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House join me in conveying our sympathy to members of James Wilkinson's family, whose lives have inevitably been turned upside down by his condition. The illness of any loved one is always traumatic and difficult to come to terms with, and especially so with one so young—in this case, a two-year-old child.
The NHS accords a high priority to children's health services. In 1991, a good practice guide on the welfare of children and young people in hospital was issued to health authorities. It made a number of important points, including—this is relevant in this case—the point that children should be treated at home wherever possible, with help from primary care and other services.
In 1993, following the Audit Commission report "Children First", which welcomed the guide's recommendations, the NHS Executive made child health a second-line priority for 1993–94. Furthermore, perinatal, infant and child mortality are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, falling significantly compared with figures for 20 years ago, for which we can all be grateful.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of what he views as Wakefield's difficult future funding situation. Regional health authorities, in making allocations to health districts for 1995–96, are following the policy that no district such as Wakefield—which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is over target in terms of the allocation formula—will lose resources in real terms.
It is for regional health authorities to make allocations to district health authorities and to decide which formula to use in setting targets. The resources that Wakefield health authority will receive next year will be greater than was predicted earlier by the authority. Although the revised weighted capitation formula will have a bearing


on future years, it will not affect Wakefield's level for growth in 1995–96. To put this in absolute numbers, I understand from the regional health authority that Wakefield health authority will receive total funding of £134 million next year, which amounts to an extra £6.2 million, including £900,000 of growth money.
This does not commit anyone to specific funding for future years, but it does show that real growth in health resources continues; so some of the hon. Gentleman's dire predictions, made here and elsewhere, about reductions in allocations to Wakefield are clearly exaggerated.

Mr. Hinchliffe: They are not my predictions; they are those of the director of finance of the health authority. The figures were put to the December meeting of the health authority.

Mr. Sackville: To suggest that, because Wakefield is a certain percentage above target, there will be a cut next year, or in any succeeding year, is wrong. That is unlikely. There will probably continue to be real growth in health resources in years to come, so there will continue to be more resources, in real terms, for Wakefield.
I understand that James Wilkinson spent almost all the first year of his life in hospital, and Wakefield health authority, the local authority and the Pinderfields trust have worked together to ensure that he can now be supported at home. I believe that the hon. Gentleman became involved in acting on behalf of the family to clarify the position of the various statutory authorities while the Wilkinsons' house was adapted and James's health care needs were assessed. I am aware of how diligently the hon. Gentleman has worked, and continues to work, to represent the needs of the family.
As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, James is now supported at home by qualified nursing staff, who, in conjunction with his parents, provide a 24-hour care package. Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson currently cover two shifts at a weekend and two evenings each week. The full cost of the care package exceeds £100,000. I am aware that the health authority has maintained contact with North Staffordshire hospital, which provides specialist paediatric services to children with this condition. The view of Professor Southall, the acknowledged expert on Ondine's syndrome, is that 24-hour qualified paediatric nursing is not necessarily required. It is also very important that the family circumstances be normalised as soon as possible.
I understand that James already attends a nursery for three mornings a week, where he is accompanied by qualified staff, and that, as a result of a recent review of his care needs, it is expected that he will shortly attend Pinderfields hospital school for two full days a week. The school is specifically for children with complex health problems. While he is at the school, a bed will be dedicated for him on a ward in case he should require a nap. The nursing cover which is usually available at home will continue to be available in the school.
Wakefield health authority fully understands the nature of its on-going responsibility towards James, but his needs may, of course, change as he grows older. The authority has made it clear that there is no possibility of it withdrawing support for James. The extent of the support, however, will need to be reviewed from time to time to ensure that it is appropriate. As children grow older, they are more easily able to control their pattern of sleep and

are less likely to need sleep during the day time. Thankfully, the level of care needed by such a child as James may alter in future years.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me—he has already praised Wakefield health authority—in welcoming the actions of the authority in providing resources so that James can be cared for properly at home. James is, and will remain, the responsibility of Wakefield health authority while he resides in the area. His case clearly involves considerable resources, but it is not unknown for such expensive cases to be borne by many health authorities. That is one of the reasons why we have sought to have health authorities that are financially strong. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have fewer and larger health authorities than we had some years ago, so that where there are such expensive cases they can be borne by individual authorities without an undue impact on other patients.
As I have said, there is no question of Wakefield health authority withdrawing its support of James. It is a matter not of resources but of the authority continuing to fund the appropriate level of care for James.
Clearly, it will be in everyone's interest for the health authority and all those concerned to continue to review James's case regularly. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and James's family that that is not because the authority lacks the commitment to pay for his continued care. It is essential that, as he gets older, the care that is provided is appropriate to his needs.
I share the hon. Gentleman's determination to ensure that high-quality treatment is available to those suffering from Ondine's syndrome, like James, for the benefit of patients and their families. I am sure that, in the case of James Wilkinson, Wakefield health authority, Pinderfields hospital trust and the local authority all share that commitment. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising such an important subject.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I have no personal doubt about Wakefield health authority's commitment to offering the care that James Wilkinson and his family need. I am concerned that it has told me that it faces immense difficulties. To its credit, it invited me to a meeting to discuss James's case during the early autumn of last year. It was made clear to me that the health authority feels that it is under immense budgetary pressures because of the demands of one patient for £102,000 of its fairly tight annual budget.
The Minister will know that there other cases nationwide that are causing similar concern. I learnt today of a Minister who has someone in his constituency with a problem similar to that of James Wilkinson, where there is a difficulty with the local health authority budget.
Away from James's case, I am saying as a point of principle that it should be recognised that there are health authorities, such as Wakefield, that are facing difficulties, and other constituents are not receiving treatment as a result of the huge resourcing demands of one particular case.
I ask the Minister whether the principle of earmarked funding—top-slicing funding within a budget—to protect the care package for someone like James can be considered by the Government. It is an issue of principle; accepted, as the Minister will be aware, by his Department. in ring fencing community care funding. It is no different, in my view, from recognising a specific area of need and


difficulty that may not be properly resourced without some protection. The hon. Gentleman has not really answered the central point in the debate—looking at the way in which the formula will operate in future to secure and protect funding in cases such as James Wilkinson's.

Mr. Sackville: I can say only that the future funding for James Wilkinson is protected by the fact that Wakefield must accept responsibility for providing an appropriate level of care. It now has a budget of £134 million. It is by no means unusual that health authorities should have individual cases that cost a great deal of money: it may be because of the level of nursing care, as in this case; it may be because of very expensive drugs or particular treatments, or because of long periods spent in intensive care, or whatever. We have attempted to find a structure with a smaller number of larger health authorities so that a health authority is able to absorb such costs. As I have also said, James's condition and needs

may change, and that issue must be reviewed regularly. While he needs that level of care, he will receive it from Wakefield. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance on that.

Mr. Hinchliffe: After he has studied the comments in Hansard tomorrow, will the Minister give an assurance that he will personally discuss with Wakefield health authority its concerns in respect of the principles in James Wilkinson's case and the specific difficulties? It would be helpful if Wakefield said to the Minister directly what it has said to me. Clearly, his brief does not take into account Wakefield's very real concerns about its budget.

Mr. Sackville: Health authorities must provide a wide spectrum of care for many different patients, some of whom have special needs. They must make the commitment to care for all those patients. I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock